Star Tribune Editor: The 'Doonesbury' decision

  • Article by: NANCY BARNES , Star Tribune
  • Updated: March 17, 2012 - 4:25 PM

It wasn't ideology, but suitability, that led us to pull last week's strips.

  • 120
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
louielouie12Mar. 17, 12 4:36 PM

Nancy - Why is Doonesbury even on the comics page? It has never been funny and always political. Print it all you want on the opinions page.

53
105
gopherfan93Mar. 17, 12 4:50 PM

I applaud your decision not to print these inflammatory and inappropriate caricatures in a family newspaper. Since you didn't print the caricatures of mohammed, if you would have printed these, then you would have identified yourselves as total hypocrites, basing "appropriateness" decisions simply on political ideology. That would have been unfair. ................. As it is, however, I'd like to point out that the ONLY political cartoons I've seen you print in your editorial pages are exlusively lampooning republicans. I can't ever recall a democrat being lampooned, although it may have happened on rare occasions. You might want to look at that and try to be more fair in that regard in the future.

42
128
gopherfan93Mar. 17, 12 4:54 PM

"Nancy - Why is Doonesbury even on the comics page? It has never been funny and always political. Print it all you want on the opinions page." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Honestly, I would consider it extremely unfair if a GOP-hating cartoon appeared several times a week in the paper without any caroons at all mocking dems / liberals.

29
92
jethompson18Mar. 17, 12 4:54 PM

While I disagree with your decision not to run the Doonesbury comics in question, I can agree with your argument. You provided a clear explanation to your readers. I agree with louielouie12, above, that Doonesbury should be on the editorial page as they are more political than comical (even though I find them very funny).

25
57
sawmanMar. 17, 12 4:56 PM

A good decision in my book....and when the GOP quits making fools of themselves the lampooning will decrease proportionally.

85
46
sthpoetMar. 17, 12 5:05 PM

Try to explain it any way you want. No matter how you slice it, it comes down to your fear of what advertisers would do. Doonesbury has had an edge from the start. That's not new. I read the panels. Spot on.

99
23
halfabubbleMar. 17, 12 5:15 PM

Self censorship is still censorship. The images in Doonesbury this past week were hardly graphic at all, and if anything, they brought to light what a "transvaginal sonogram" requires, an unnecessary invasive medical procedure being forced upon doctors to perform against medical advice. At most what you should have done was move the the cartoon to the op/ed page for the week. Instead, you've decided to censor political discourse. In short: EPIC FAIL.

118
37
pitythefoolsMar. 17, 12 6:02 PM

"Some readers asked why we didn't move the strip to the editorial pages...we don't want to be in the practice of judging from one week to the next whether to run the strip in the opinion section or the comics section."

What a bunch of blarney. So you don't want to make that decision every week, but THIS particular strip you made the decision to pull altogether. So you DO make that decision every week. And THIS particular strip you decided to single out. The Strib used to be liberal. Since ownership changed in 2009 it has become increasingly conservative. Pulling this, instead of putting it on the editorial pages as has been done in the past just proves the political leanings of the Stribs new owners.

95
24
lacarlson1Mar. 17, 12 6:09 PM

A terrific decision. The comic pages are read by many families and many different ages. Rape is never funny regardless of what context it's being used. I have a wonderful sense of humor and I don't find Doonesbury particularly amusing.

33
84
dranderson99Mar. 17, 12 6:14 PM

Rationalize all you want, but it still comes down to the fact that you chose censorship because you were afraid of a rightwing uproar. Alternatives short of censorship were easily possible but they were ignored.

103
24

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: What was your biggest Olympics disappointment?

Weekly Question