And didn't the writer of that letter, the editor, address at least your concern about the towers being used in the cartoon? Will two apologies (from him) make you feel any better? So far I have only read one "apology" that said he was "sorry" but he then tried to justify his actions and lay blame to those that were angry for the publication. He even accused those offended by his editorial decision of committing a crime in doing so!
A true apology is simple but its amazingly hard for some to understand. Its, "I'm sorry, I was wrong and I will take steps to remedy the situation." Mr. Pride did nothing of the sort.
I am sure the publisher of the Concord Monitor will make remedy for the situation through the firing of Mike Pride for gross editorial malpractice and the elimination of any further inclusion of Mike Marland's cartoons within the paper. This would be the responsible actions of a publisher who is responsible to investors and advertisers much less the community at large his paper serves.
I have no problems with the Concord Monitor disagreeing with Bush's policy on Social Security. That is a legitimate editorial and political argument even if I disagree with it. However, to cross the line and use the deaths of 3,000 innocent New Yorkers and portray President Bush as an Islamic terrorist to push that opinion lacks sound judgement. I am not saying he did have the right to publish the cartoon but he must accept the consequences of doing so. Free Speech is a two way street and Mr. Pride cannot publish in a vacuum -- especially in this day and age.
So far I have only read one "apology" that said he was "sorry" but he then tried to justify his actions and lay blame to those that were angry for the publication. He even accused those offended by his editorial decision of committing a crime in doing so!
He did absolutely no such thing. For someone to read his letter and come away with that conclusion has to either be smoking some crack, stupid or uses a seeing eye dog. You have completely misrepresented (a polite dime-store word for LIED) about his letter. I can only imagine how exaggerated your crocodile tears are.
I am sure the publisher of the Concord Monitor will make remedy for the situation through the firing of Mike Pride for gross editorial malpractice and the elimination of any further inclusion of Mike Marland's cartoons within the paper.
For someone who had an opinion that mattered I would call them a totalitarian fool if they seriously advocated a prior restraint on all of Marland's future cartoons. Talk about being an ignorant, uninformed, head in the sand chicken little.
. . . to cross the line and use the deaths of 3,000 innocent New Yorkers and portray President Bush as an Islamic terrorist to push that opinion lacks sound judgement. I am not saying he did have the right to publish the cartoon but he must accept the consequences of doing so. Free Speech is a two way street . . . Very true. VA, you seem to think that because someone on FR posts their opinions, or writes letters to the editor expressing their views, they somehow have an untoward motivation for doing so. Juxtapose that with your freely expressed criticizisms of the posters in your own posting. It's ironic, to say the least.
I am genuinely upset, and let the editor of the paper know. It's my right to speak. We, each of us, have a duty as citizens of this land, to exercise our rights, freely. To use our voices. By doing so, we send out a message. Sometimes the message conveys approval, other times disapproval. A jury of your peers sends the same message with their verdicts. It is what our country is built upon, free expression but there are consequences and responsibilities with that freedom. A good and wise citizen uses, not abuses, those rights. On that note, I will share my freedom of expression (which includes criticism)(seamole, bear with me here, I know you've already seen this):
Dear Mr. Pride, Online yesterday, I came upon Mr. Marland's political cartoon. My immediate reaction was: disgust and anger. Today, those feelings have only intensified.
This morning, I came upon your statement/apology concerning the cartoon. My reaction: while the apology places blame upon your decision to allow the cartoon to run, there is an undertone of placing blame on the individual (whoever that may be) who posted the cartoon on the internet, thereby allowing the community at large to read/see what's being printed in the Concord Monitor's newspaper. ("Even though Marland's cartoon was copyrighted, it was on the Internet by midday Friday.") While I appreciate your public apology, I sense a certain amount of deflection and finger-pointing by the previous statement, thereby making the apology something less than a full apology. The cartoon is offensive for several reasons, some you have mentioned. What I perceive to be the greater offense: depicting President Bush as callously using our national tragedy for his personal gain and personal agenda: an ad hominem attack. There are great similarities between Mike Marland's "Social Security" cartoon and one drawn by Gary Trudeau in a Doonesberry cartoon and printed a couple months ago. These kinds of attacks were absent from the cartoonists while Clinton, an man of ill-repute and questionable character, was in office, which makes the attacks against our current President more odious and disgusting. President Bush is an honorable man, who seeks to do good for our country. We may not all agree with his every decision, but he is motivated by and seeks to do, what he believes is best for our country. Something his predecessor never did.
Trudeau's strip to which I referred, printed November 18, 2001: 