The Censored Two "Boondocks" Strips Here (2-28, 3-1)

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000818909

.... According to Universal Press Syndicate, newspapers pulling today's (2-28) strip included The Detroit News and the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The Poynter Institute's Romenesko site reported that the Chicago Tribune also dropped today's "Boondocks," with the paper saying the comic "presents inaccurate information as fact."

Universal said the Star Tribune also plans to drop tomorrow's (3-1) "Boondocks," which again refers to Bush's alleged former drug use. ....




********UNQUOTE*******

FYI - post images here -> http://images.GlobalFreePress.com

first create an account...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/register.php

then upload at will ;->

this way we can have a permanent archive to refer back to and post their image urls in your favorite blogs to remind folks that the neoCONs have no mandate.

also, add a link to the source, if possible, and any accompanying text if available, please.

don't forget to vote and comment on your favorite images as well =)

if you have any problems ping me at DU.

psst... pass the word :bounce:

peace

I heard the Weade tapes; Bush ADMITS ON TAPE to having smoked pot. So, how is McGruder bashing him for it not based on FACT?

... which Bush has refused to discuss.

Democrats are villified if they do.

IOKIYAR

So, how much credence are we supposed to give to a guy who refuses to talk about his past? I'll just assume that he did coke, too. I'll assume that until he directly denies it.

... is that there's no evidence (not a particularly good excuse, except that they're fearful they'll be joined in a suit).

In Bush's case, he's probably bulletproof on this subject. Even if there were evidence which surfaced that showed he used coke, he'll fall back on his ever-ready excuse--he hasn't done anything like that since he found God.

Now, if someone were to come up with evidence that he was selling it....

... Bush's lawyers have got `em....

... but don't get your hopes up. Who's gonna subpoena them? Criminal courts? Was he under oath when he made the statements? No? Well, no perjury charges. Criminal possession? Statute of limitations has run out a long time ago.

Subpoena for impeachment charges? Keep on hoping, but don't hold your breath. Bush could get caught screwing a chicken on the Truman balcony at high noon on Flag Day and this Congress would say, "gee, too bad, must mean Laura's not feeling too well."

There's absolutely no legal basis for such an argument.

... public figures aren't exempt from libel protection. One can use their likeness and their name because they're public figures, without infringement of their rights, but one can't libel them at will because they're public figures.

On edit, I doubt the paper has a gripe in this regard, but its lawyers would probably say that cartoon was a no-no. Mind you, Magruder is probably a lot closer to the truth than Bush will ever admit, but corporate lawyers don't think that way....

Cheers.

And also prove not only that the statements were false, but that the defendant knew they were false or acted with "a reckless and willful disregard for the truth."

Laughable.

If they were to consistently follow such legal advice, if indeed that's what it was, they wouldn't publish any cartoons, much less political cartoons and editorials.

... but, then, as I suggested, you and I don't think like corporate lawyers. :) Corporations have become progressively more risk-averse, and this may be an example.

The other possibility, of course, is that they are doing whatever they can to maintain the public facade of a drug abuser who also happens to be president.... :)

And using the legal department for CYA.

5 will get you 173 they have a formula for calculating how many lost subscriptions each angry email represents, and 10 will get you 17 it's wrong. The modern backlash machine is very effective at exaggerating public outcries.

And of course they wouldn't be in such a pickle if they weren't so heavily invested in maintaining the facade that Bush has never used illicit drugs.

Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!

then how did those people in the 90s get away with accusing Clinton of murder and other assorted crimes?

Were the most flagrant libels picked up by corporate media? If so, then it would seem to be a political calculation.

Consider the case of Gerhard Schröder vs. The Mail on Sunday, I mean the political calculus of it, not its legalities. Arguably it hurt Schröder as much as it helped him. Then again, he's still Chancellor.

There are probably cultural factors too, a different Zeitgeist, a different sense of what's permissable or popular, and also the obvious political bias of the publishers--hypocritical, but what can you do about it?

And what's true of the press (you know, "ink by the barrel") goes double for comedians. Sue a comedian for making you look ridiculous? Oh, there's a sure route to restoring your dignity.

So again, in American law the bar is set pretty high. And litigating against parody is a sure loser in the court of public opinion. In the case of Boondocks, this business about liability is bunkum.

Just my two cents.

BTW, those "youthful" indiscretions involve everything until he was 40 years old.

... that suggested that Bush's present moral framework is similar to that of the phase one goes through at the age of 13. I suspect that chronological age has little to do with his indiscretions (he still seems to be a schoolyard bully nearly twenty years after his conversion).

Cheers.

that he has fucked sheep as part of his Skull and Bones initiation. until he denies it, of course.

presents inaccurate information as fact every day. I bet they don't complain about that.

didn't you get the memo?

Aaron :yourock:

LOL! Sending 'em everywhere...spreading the factually correct comic and not the opinionated press stuffings.

Can't make jokes about the grinning, kill-happy fraud king, but by golly, we can do Monica jokes with abandon, until the mountains fall into the sea.

FYI - post images here -> http://images.GlobalFreePress.com

first create an account...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/register.php

then upload at will ;->

this way we can have a permanent archive to refer back to and post their image urls in your favorite blogs to remind folks that the neoCONs have no mandate.

also, add a link to the source, if possible, and any accompanying text if available, please.

don't forget to vote and comment on your favorite images as well =)

if you have any problems ping me at DU.

psst... pass the word :bounce:

peace

I like this guy as a Maher guest and of course share his sentiments but wtf is up with all these comic strips where the "artist" can't f-ing DRAW! The paper is full of them...

Cathi and Luann and Boondocks etc etc....terrible! Same lame drawings over and over.

I am married to a great animator/artists which is why it pisses me off I suppose, LOL. Every time I see this guy's strip it infuriates me! He does that "Doonesbury" thing too where 90% of the panels are in profile.

Although some have both.

And some have neither--but "Mallard Fillmore" is useful to balance a comic page in which a few strips are obviously liberal & many others slip in the occasional anti-Republican zinger.

Yeah "Mallard Filmore" is not too bad! Also the guy here who posts the toons periodically there are some killer artists on those collections, none of whom I ever see in my paper. Great stuff in there!

That guy can't draw (or scrawl, more like) for shit AND his jokes are totally idiotic to nonexistent. Only reason any paper runs him is to offer an element of Right-wing "balance" to the comics page.

Actually the vast majority of the comic strips are so terrible and you wonder who the hell likes them or reads them, and what "ratings" system they go by? Does anybody really follow Rex Morgan or Apt. 3-G? And what is that one -- is it called For Better Or For Worse, with all these women all hunched over??

Calvin and Hobbes was probably the last comic strip I thought was really excellent, funny and great expression in the drawing. Far Side was always funny -- and Dilbert, the drawings are crude but they work because the strip is so funny and most people can relate to the cubicle hell issue.

The guy who draws "Non Sequitur"- Wiley Miller, I think is his name.

Dan Piraro.

Berkeley Breathed.

try reading the words.

and comparing cathi and boondocks, you just lost any credibility you ever had.

good luck to your husband. hope things pick up.

that you can't criticize anybody for any reason that you idolize ideologically speaking....the hub has been a working character animator for 25 years, he and every other animation artist I know can draw circles around these awful comic strip artists, they should have somebody who can draw do the drawings.

As for content....it didn't really bowl me over either, I think focusing on GWB or anybody else doing drugs 30 years ago is kind of 9,000th in line of what we should be pointing out.

I think his characters are ugly and doonesbury-ish, and it's boring how he always has them reading in profile or whatever. I just don't like this guy as an artist, so sue me.

Read the message!

Rather, I think the real trick is to be able to come up with content, day in and day out.

I like Magruder's style, personally.

when you first heard the story and they kept saying weed. I thought is the MSM really referring to marijuana as weed?

"Doug Wead"

Yeah, I'll BET Dumbya "Dug Weed". I bet he still digs it.

Didn't I say that about 2 weeks ago, when this story surfaced to get all our minds off of "Mr. Eight-Inches-Cut"?

that's funny and food for thought. Unkle Karl has devilish a sense of humor, he is Satan.:evilgrin:

It's usually something more creative. Maybe those other websites are depleting your energy. ;-)

nt

Kick!

a blue city in a red county in a red region of a red state.

"Boondocks" already runs, along with "Doonesbury" and "Mallard Fillmore" (a conservative cartoon) on the editorial pages, anyway, so it was no biggie. I'm sure there will be both pro and con letters later this week, too.

What is it with conservatives? How many ways are there to be wrong about cartoons? How many ways to be wrong about facts? My head is spinning.

and they endorsed Bush in November. A rare case of journalistic impartiality to have done both, I think.

Redstone

and didn't run the cartoon. They actually DO have a liberal editiorial board.

I can't remember them ever not running a strip (usually Boondocks or Doonesbury) that other papers were banning.

Wait a minute, I heard the tape of those words (about drug use) straight out of the horse's ass, I mean mouth on the Daily Show. Maybe those papers should check out Jon Stewart instead of Faux News!

Yeah, those cartoons, presenting inaccurate information as fact! How dare they? Unlike CORRECT cartoons, which present people as having big heads and little tiny bodies, or present animals talking, or show people/animals coming back to life after big explosions...

:kick:

LMAO

though, just for fun.

Not into censorship, bless them. At least not this time.

Thanks.