Boondocks censored by the Washington Post this week

[chascarrillo]

This statement on the WP site tells it all:

The Washington Post has decided not to publish this week's Boondocks strip.
The comic will return to washingtonpost.com Oct. 19.

http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/bo/

Well well well... Here's the strips they censored:

http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/

[WillyBrandt]

1. hahahaha

uh, yeah...

[The Zanti Regent]

11. Whoreshington Post strkies again

Once again the Whoreshington Post proves that there is no difference between it and the Whoreshington Times. Both kiss Bush's ass 24/7...

[w4rma]

2. I think Aaron McGruder is on vacation and these strips are reruns.

So, the WP may have decided not to run the reruns of the strip. That said, IMHO, the WP would save themselves some headaches if they noted that he is on vacation, if he is on vacation.

[pansypoo53219]

4. that one was new

but its george who needs a good fuck.

[WoodrowFan]

8. No, he's not on vacation.

He was on vacation LAST week. This week, the Post has said on their website, they are NOT running his current (i.e. new) strips.

The Washington Post has decided not to publish this week's Boondocks strip. The comic will return to washingtonpost.com Oct. 19.

[skyzics]

3. The same might be said of..

Interior Secretary Gale Norton.

I can kind of understand the WP not running those strips.. as it alludes to an individual's personal status as a single person and not politics per se. I suppose for the WP to explain why they are not running the strips would only bring additional attention to the matter, but then again, so does simply not running it. So in the end, I don't see what is necessarily gained by not running it vs. going ahead and running it.

[FrenchieCat]

5. maybe our dear

National Security Advisor needs to get the big bang..... it may stimulate her "imagination"......if it would have happened prior to 9/11....maybe she could have imagined airplanes running into buildings......:nuke:

[chascarrillo]

6. Chat response from WP's Gene Weingarten

Found this via Google News:

South Cali, land of the Governator: Hey, Monday's "Boondocks" wasn't half bad. It wasn't funny, but more importantly it wasn't half bad. Could this mean that the "Boondocks" are on a comeback trail?!

Also, I like "Mutts." A lot. Is there something wrong with me?

I'm a guy, by the way.

washingtonpost.com: Hmm. I went to find a link and found this message online where the comic would normally be:
"The Washington Post has decided not to publish this week's Boondocks strip. The comic will return to washingtonpost.com Oct. 19."

But here it is on Yahoo.

Gene Weingarten: Oboy. I hate this. Yes, we've decided not to run Boondocks this week because the story line seems to be an ad-feminem attack on Condi Rice. (Liz, please link to today's strip, which clears up the confusion.)

This one is interesting, and I have not asked our comics people why they dumped it. On one hand, I'm tempted to say that if we let Johnny Hart blather and drool and fulminate all over the page, we might as well let anyone else say whatever the heck they want.

But that's a copout. I am not in the office, so I have not seen where McGruder is taking this storyline, but based on today's offering alone, I don't think I would have cut it. It's very strong and opinionated and quite mean, and it presumes something I don't know (that because Condi Rice is unmarried she does not have a man she loves) but it seems like reasonable and defensible political commentary. And Lord knows, I'd like to encourage McGruder to get back his edge.

I wonder if The Post would have been quite as prim had the subject of this strip been a single man and not a single woman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56425-2003Oct7.html

[RamboLiberal]

7. This is a great bit on Condi and nothing we at DU haven't said

I think the WP needs a ton of emails from all of us protesting the pulling of the strip.

[OKNancy]

9. I agree with the Post

This isn't attacking her policies. It's sexist claptrap.
Yeah...Madelina Albright needs a good fuck
so does Nancy Pelosi, and Diane Feinstein. They are much too harsh.


I can't write anymore I'm so pissed. I can't believe DU people think this way.

[theemu]

10. It's IRONIC sexist claptrap

[OKNancy]

12. My comment is about this one

I'm sorry, but this is just crude. If this was about a Democratic woman, people would be all over it.

Fight the policy, not the person, and especially not her personal life.

[theemu]

13. For some reason, people don't get The Boondocks

The fact is, Aaron McGruder is a man of the 1990s, in that 90% of what he says is ironic. Yeah, he agrees with Huey some times (less so with Caesar, and much less so with Riley), but there's a reason he puts his trenchant political observations into the mouths of babes - it's because he doesn't always agree with them or their actions. He's much more interested in creating a complex portrayal of Americana.

[Iverson]

14. Remember Doonesbury?

Back during the Watergate investigations, there was a censored strip in which Mark, in his dj job, referred to Nixon on air as "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" That one was censored too.

Yes, it is sexist claptrap. However, it is not a serious commentary in the same way that an article or op-ed piece is. A comic strip is there to entertain, even if it may be stupid or crass. Censoring it is wholly misguided.

[spooky3]

15. what if it were racist claptrap?

[Iverson]

16. (answer below!)

Depending upon exactly how that was constituted, I would either recommend a lawsuit or else give exactly the same advice as I did a few minutes ago.

Not all offensive acts are equal to one another, be they racist, sexist, or something else.