Chicago Tribune defends decision to pass on this week’s ‘Doonesbury’

Chicago Tribune | Wonkette | AndrewSullivan.com

After bloggers blasted it for not running this week’s Sarah Palin-related “Doonesbury” strips, the Chicago Tribune denied it was censoring Garry Trudeau’s work and repeated that “the remarks are serious enough that we cannot publish the strip without more information, context and a response from Palin.” Wonkette called the paper’s excuse for not running the strip “weird,” while Andrew Sullivan asks: “Did they treat Palin’s own delusional “Going Rogue” as if it had been fact-checked? It wasn’t.” In the Tribune’s comments section, a reader tells the paper: “Don’t come up with clever rationalizations of why you won’t run a cartoon that’s critical of Sarah Palin – you insult yourself and your readers.” || @MikeRiggs: “The Joe McGinniss excerpts Gary Trudeau is posting are pretty upsetting. Has anybody fact-checked the book?” || Read today’s strip.

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • Anonymous

    So many right-wing trolls on a media site? Eric Alterman was obviously on target when he asked, “What Liberal Media?”

  • Anonymous

    The Tribune is not obligated to act as a host to a parasitical leftist virus that is intent on a blatantly sexist vendetta attack on an outspoken conservative that many Americans admire.
    Gary is getting old and bitter and it shows.He has gone too far before.This is not unique but a very revealing exposure of the Left’s  hatred and sneering contempt for conservative women.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tommy.grooms Tommy Sharkbait Grooms

    People still read Doonesbury? 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/BQ7JX5BODUMWCURFUZSKKHQ4CE Charles S

    good for them. the Liberals wanted a new tone, a new civility of speech and so forth. time for the liberals to follow there’re own advice to put up or shut up.

  • Anonymous

    Balderdash: The hypocrisy of the left again comes through loud and clear. I can cite more than one major metro that dropped “Mallard Fillmore” because of its conservative slant.

  • Anonymous

    So your evidence that you always judge things on their merits and your own human judgment, and not on clunky, robotic right-wing political dogma, is that you don’t like when people say bad things about Palin. Got it. 

    I have no idea what’s true in this book and what isn’t. I imagine we’ll know soon enough, at least generally. For now, I can say that nothing I’ve seen surprises me, given the well-established facts about Palin’s history.

    I’m not sure why “the MSM” is supposed to be spending its resources on calling out Andrew Sullivan on a regular basis, but OK. As for my psychology, I can say categorically that if Mallard Fillmore quoted from some crazy book about Obama, I wouldn’t care one way or the other. But if a newspaper yanked it, while otherwise leaving the strip alone, and gave reasons similar to what the Tribune droids said here, it would bother me. Speaking of projection: that’s what simpleminded ideologues do, not me. You’re mistaking me for “a liberal.” Which I probably am compared to you, I guess, if I were to be forced onto the spectrum. But when I see reflexive behavior from liberals, as on Daily Kos, for example, I’m just as appalled as I am by your type. You’re all of a piece as far as I’m concerned. Pod people. There’s not a hair’s breadth of effective difference between you and them in terms of the harm you all do to American political and social life. Except for one thing: there’s a lot more of you than there are of them. Or at least, you’re louder and more incendiary, so you get more attention.

  • Anonymous

    “That’s the *only* criterion by which they judge anything.”

    Not at all. I judge stupidity by its degree, for example. I consider Andrew Sullivan’s beliefs about Trig Palin to be one of the stupidest things ever documented, and I think the MSM is remiss in not pointing it out every time Sullivan erupts against Ms. Palin.

    I also know — *know* — this isn’t the first time Doonesbury has been yanked.

    You are engaged in classic psychological projection: You have no problem with the offensive strip because the claims at hand — including today’s, which states quite openly that Palin is a RACIST — because the target is Palin.

    Accusing someone of firing people based on race is a permanent scarlet letter on his or her reputation. You wouldn’t print a letter to the editor making the claim without the facts. Why would Doonesbury get a pass? Because it’s in another part of the paper?

  • Anonymous

    I can’t help but wonder how all the pod people in this thread don’t read over their stuff and see that it’s motivated   purely by witless politics and is, therefore, meaningless drivel. They’re cheering for the Tribune (apparently part of the “liberal MSM” except when it’s not)  *only* because they perceive this as a pro-right, anti-left move. 

    That’s the *only* criterion by which they judge anything. I wonder (rhetorically): do they believe that if some right-wing cartoonist excerpted stuff from a mean book about Obama, they’d be saying the same things? Of course, they wouldn’t, but from my experience with the Internet-American Community, I know for a fact that most of them actually believe that they come to these opinions as freethinkers, unadulterated by propaganda influence. They believe it even as they parrot talking points almost word for word. It’s quite an incredible phenomenon, really. I almost want to give them the Turing Test. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Levy/1332321421 Marc Levy

    U.S. media have published a ton of stories about birthers, and I’m sure the Tribune has had its share. The issue has been covered exhaustively. And there are conservative comic strips out there (including “Mallard Fillmore” and “Prickly City”) that use “facts” I would say are not facts at all. I don’t know if the Tribune runs those comic strips. But your thesis that a mainstream newspaper doesn’t cover or publish stuff offensive to Democrats, liberals and progressives, including material of questionable sourcing or repute, doesn’t hold up.
    Also, I’m not sure what your point is about Hillary Clinton and birtherism. What “good story” would be affected by saying she was the mother of birtherism? I can’t see what is has to do with *this* story, which is about the Tribune, Doonesbury and Palin.

  • Anonymous

    The Trib is under no obligation to print nasty personal attacks via the Doonesbury/McGinnis axis of oddballs. And it’s no surprise Trudeau would reach down into this dirty swamp to fling sewage. He did the same to Quayle in his 1980s strips, using the Speedway bomber’s complaints to take swipes at the vice president. Again, not a first for the down-and-dirty Garry.

    But if they want to print it, that’s OK with me too. A free press and all. It’s just that ethical duty to be fair, y’know.

    The one thing NO newspaper should print are the insane burpings of Andrew Sullivan, who thinks Palin’s baby is actually her granddaughter — and who can’t even get the facts right about Palin’s book being fact-checked. I believe it WAS. Wrong again, Andy.

    –BroMatt

  • Anonymous

    Andrew Sullivan says Palin’s “Going Rogue” wasn’t fact-checked?

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha …

    For the first time in history that I am aware of, the AP, that’s right, the Associated Press, assigned ELEVEN, that’s right, 11, reporters to divy up the 400 pages amongst themselves and fact-check them.

    Has ANY other politician’s book EVER been fact-checked by 11 AP reporters? Here’s your proof – and I’ve even linked HuffPo so you’ll read it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-turley/going-rogue-with-fact-che_b_362690.html

    Will the AP assign ELEVEN, that’s right, 11, reporters to factcheck Joe McGinnis – the immoral “journalist” who even had a whole book written about his immorality. Janet Malcolm’s “The Journalist and the Murderer.”

  • Anonymous

    Andrew Sullivan says Palin’s “Going Rogue” wasn’t fact-checked?

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha …

    For the first time in history that I am aware of, the AP, that’s right, the Associated Press, assigned ELEVEN, that’s right, 11, reporters to divy up the 400 pages amongst themselves and fact-check them.

    Has ANY other politician’s book EVER been fact-checked by 11 AP reporters? Here’s your proof – and I’ve even linked HuffPo so you’ll read it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-turley/going-rogue-with-fact-che_b_362690.html

    Will the AP assign ELEVEN, that’s right, 11, reporters to factcheck Joe McGinnis – the immoral “journalist” who even had a whole book written about his immorality. Janet Malcolm’s “The Journalist and the Murderer.”

  • Robert F

    Good for the Trib.  It was blatant political carp.  I bet there would be a different attitude if the tables were turned and the subject matter were Obama.  Ah the Hypocrisy of the Left.  Food for thought… what if the Strip suggested Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen?  Oh, the horror that would ensue!  BTW, the knee-jerk Left fails to comprehend that the Mother of the Birther Movement was none other than Hillary Clinton.  But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story?

  • Anonymous

    the more the trib tries to explain, the deeper the hole gets.