In the Oct. 5 Comic Strip of the Day, long-time newspaper reporter Mike Peterson points out the real problem facing editorial cartoonists — their editors.
Here's the salient passage:
[T]he topic of offending readers has come to the fore with the publication, and subsequent renunciation of a political cartoon about the Las Vegas shootings.
Before I worked in newsrooms, I would see an editorial cartoon that seemed at odds with the tenor of the paper in which it appeared, and I'd assume that they felt some ethical compulsion to present the other side of the issue.
Once I began to work with editors on a more constant basis than simply mailing in my work, however, I came to find that they honestly didn't get cartoons.
They knew that a bear meant Russia and a bulldog meant Britain and all that mechanical stuff, but they couldn't grok the medium; they didn't feel how the parts fit together.
As for the cartoon in question -- which is not currently visible on the cartoonist's archive -- I will say only that I would not have selected it.
But, if I had, I would not then turn around and disclaim it, because apologizing for your decision is nothing less than a declaration of your own incompetence.
After all, this goes well beyond "regretting the error" over spelling a name wrong or scrambling a statistic.
You made a statement of opinion on behalf of your paper. Stand by it, or stand down.
Read the whole thing (and see the 'offending' cartoon) here: https://www.comicstripoftheday.com/