So what? Editorial cartoons are often offensive.
I can’t disagree with you, however it seems that being offensive to muslims is against the policy of the Washington Post, any other group is fair game. Agreed?
No, your stubborn refusal to read.
Shodan’s rule of thumb - if they didn’t read it the first time, they won’t read it the second either.
No, the suppression of the comic came from the Washington Post itself, as mentioned.
I see you are back on the “make it personal” track instead of the “don’t make it personal” track.
As mentioned, they are not likely to admit their cowardice and hypocrisy. They seem to be as much in denial as you.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, if your interpretation of that cartoon is correct, then that’s bad. But I’m skeptical that Oliphant is directly asserting that Cuban-Americans “interfere” with elections. He usually has pretty sophisticated satire. Are your sure he’s not satirizing something that Obama said?
I think rather that these little angst-fests over ‘offensive’ cartoons crop up semi-randomly. Someone gets their jaw out of joint, and once in a while impacts publishing decisions. This sort of thing happens a couple of times each year, and never seems to signify much.
But if they riot in Denmark, it seems to signify a bit more.
Regards,
Shodan
The question I specifically asked was whether The Washington Post had actually issued a statement on the issue. My original question was simply whether anyone had discovered a statement from the WaPo editors that I had missed. With all the ensuing hoopla, I was surprised that no statement had been issued, and my experience of old Doonesbury strips had been that various papers generally stuck a tag on the strip mentioning that they were withholding the strip for that date because they found the material objectionable. I was doing nothing more than looking for whatever statement the WaPo might have issued in conjunction with refusing to run these strips.
You have provided a statement from Fox News claiming unnmamed “sources” made several comments.
Even if the sources are correct, this fails to answer my specific question as to whether the newspaper had addressed the issue.
Repeating your erroneous claim that your citation provided a statement from WaPo management is simply silly.
I do not think that the decision was legitimate and it is obvious that the decision to not run the strip in The Washington Post was made by the editors of The Washington Post. However, “unnamed ‘sources’” paraphrased in a competing news organization is not the same thing as a statement by the organization, itself, which was all that I sought.
You are the one who has tried to make this personal with your silly claims of rubbing noses and absurd claims of “denial.”
Shodan’s Rule of Thumb obviously describes Shodan’s posting.
Shodan’s Rule of Action: Claim the same nonsense over and over, ignoring the actual statements of other posters until they get tired of the personal attacks and leave the falsehood standing.
The fact that the artist is Oliphant makes it clear that it was a political cartoon–a medium that has even more free rein for insult and offense than stuff that runs in the regular comics.
The folks in the rowboat, while labelled “Cuban-Americans” are all depicted as being very old wearing 1950s style hats and shawls. (Oliphant’s trademark little critter making the Batista comment is probably intended to reinforce the notion that Oliphant is expressly addressing the first generation of émigrés, not necessarily anyone living in Florida who happens to have immigrated from Cuba or been born to Cuban immigrants.)
The reference to “interfering” is more likely an implication that all the cigar and rum money the first group of “rich” refugees brought out of Cuba has (in the minds of many) been used to buy patronage and political power–not a simple claim that they should not be allowed to vote. (I had not heard NDP’s story of recount interference, but that would not apply to the first generation, anyway, as it is a bit difficult to picture a bunch of octogenarians ransacking a polling office.)
Now, I am not in any way pretending that it is not insulting. However, the fact that it is a political cartoon that provides most readers familiar with Oliphant* a context for a specific target places it in a different category of editorial oversight than a strip placed in the “funny papers.” (I have not seen a print edition of the WaPo in years. In any other paper, Oliphant’s stuff would appear on the editorial page and not with the comics. I presume that that would also be the case in the WaPo, but I am open to correction.)
- (Who reads Oliphant besides us geezers, anyway?)
Does that thing have a name, or even a species?
I have several collections of Oliphant dating back to the 1950s and I cannot recall him (or anyone else) giving it any identification.
OTOH, Wikipedia claims it is a “small penguin character named Punk.”
By the way, the Post’s cartoonist is Tom Toles, not Oliphant. That cartoon didn’t run in their daily paper.
And I don’t understand why it’s only the right that’s annoyed by this. Kow-towing to any group of easily offended idiots sets a bad precedent, whatever the reason.
I don’t think I qualify as right or left, I have never voted in any election in the US or Canada, and I don’t count Cuban elections. I am however Cuban, and if I ever meet Mr. Oliphant I will call him a racist idiot.
I was referring to the Opus cartoon, not the Oliphant cartoon. Sorry for not making that clear.
It doesn’t appear that it’s only the right who thinks this is a dumb idea. I’m not sure where you’re getting that impression.
And does anyone recall the row between Oliphant and Breathed when the latter won the Pulitzer? That they’re both being discussed is, I think, interesting to say the least.