Chicago Tribune defends spiking "Boondocks"

get this: it was not censorship, it was COURAGE.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0307240236jul24,1,3058231.column

<snip>

In this connection, it may be useful to quote some lines from a memo Brown recently sent to the group of colleagues he calls his Comics Committee:

At this newspaper, we EDIT the strips just like we edit staff-written stories or wire copy. The comics must meet the same standards as anything else we put on our pages. We are not an unfiltered receptacle for tasteless, libelous or otherwise unfair cartoons ....

Some people call this censorship. Some label it wishy-washy. The comics editor and I call it the courage of our convictions.

Because we are not obligated to run strips that aren't worthy of our newsprint.

Is that paper a right-wing rag? Do you know which strip teed them off? Aaron Magruder is a genius.

Wycliff, the author of this piece, is one of their worst. I see his little face next to a column and I know I'm going to be puking soon.

I'm proud to say that when I complained about them spiking the Boondocks, which was actually an excellent cartoon, I addressed it to Wycliff. :-)

Seems to me the comics page should be "edited" the same as the editorial page. Differening viewpoints are allowed. I seem to remember that the viewpoint of that strip was that Bush is a simp/wimp/POS for suggesting that the Iraqi's "bring it on" our boys while he sits comfortably in his den, choking on an occasional pretzel. How that is libelous is beyond me.

Could someone repost the original comic for this thread?

rather than comics, but I might be totally mistaken

I call it kowtowing to right-wing bullying, but what do I know? Hope Chicagoland gives them hell.

was there a particular strip that offended them?

In the former, BET *did* run this information in a timely fashion, so they decided it was just too stupid.

In the latter, they knew that a lot of people would view it as insensitive to, even making fun of, our soldiers dying in Iraq. And it is a pretty good bet they were right. A lot of people *would* have seen it that way and raised a ruckus. Of course, I thought newspapers were supposed to cause a ruckus.

until I read the editorial page this morning.

Boondocks is part of my home page, so i read it there.

the second one(with the grandfather looking at the tv) is an instant classic...it even got 3 's at Bartcop

"...snapped his fingers twice."

The image is priceless.

That strip will become an important historical artifact, IMHO.

:kick:

who wrote a column complaining that the ACTUAL photo our unelected drunk POSED for amounted to "a Page 1 editorial in which George W. Bush was being labeled an idiot and a clown, unsuited to the presidency."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/chi-0211210393nov21.column

reporting any number of ACTUAL Bush quotes.

How about the one where he said "We found the WMD."

Or how about the one where he said we attacked Iraq because he wouldn't let the inspectors into Iraq.

Or when he said he didn't know Ken Lay?

:puke: