Reply #7: I e-mailed Wycliff then called the 800 number on their bill [View All]

[followthemoney]

Subject: Fwd: RE: On Silencing of Boondocks
Date: Tue 03/15/05 11:53 AM



--- Begin forwarded message:

From: followthemoney
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:16:27 -0800 (PST)
To: "Wycliff, N. Don" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: On Silencing of Boondocks



Mr. Wycliff,


You have given the Bush administration carte blanche with your newspaper. Their lie upon lie has resulted in untold tragedy for thousands of human beings, and unlike the New York Times and the Washington Post, you have provided no small admission of error in your overly enthusiastic cheerleading for the Bush administration and your unquestioning acceptance of their FACTUALLY UNFOUNDED statements. You have thereby contributed to a misinformed public.


When I buy your publication I expect it to adhere to “some fundamental standards: accuracy, fairness, taste” without deference to ideology and to otherwise unapparent interests.


I don’t refer to “good old days”, but “other days” when a city could support more than two papers. There may have existed more censorship WITHIN papers but more diversity of opinion BETWEEN papers. I will cite examples for you if you show any further interest.


Your protection the image of George Bush in reference to his drug use involves a finely nuanced cloak of words which leaves his history undetermined. Huey, However, the child sees the emperor has no cloths. Therein lies the charm of Huey unBowdlerized

followthemoney



--- "Wycliff, N. Don" <[e-mail]> wrote:

From: "Wycliff, N. Don" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:53:46 -0600
Subject: RE: On Silencing of Boondocks



Dear Mr. followthemoney:

We don't give ANYONE carte blanche with the newspaper. They offer their product, we buy it and commit to use it as long as it meets some fundamental standards: accuracy, fairness, taste. Frankly, those seem to me neither unreasonable nor onerous.

No, I can't improve on Aaron McGruder, but I don't try to. And please, don't talk about the good old days. There was more "censorship" back then than you can begin to appreciate.

You are correct: YOU are free to take GWB's refusal to answer as an implicit admission. WE, however, are obligated to say not that he admitted it, but that he refused to answer.

DW


-----Original Message-----

To: Wycliff, N. Don
Subject: On Silencing of Boondocks


Mr.Wycliff,

The editorial board endorsed George Bush for president. This was an act I strongly disagreed with. None the less, I continued to subscribe to the Tribune. I don't expect every decision of the board to coincide with mine. One of the things that balanced the Tribune for me is Boondocks. It was one of the reasons I continued to subscribe.

My position is that you should either carry the cartoon or not carry the cartoon. I don't expect you to act as co-editor of the cartoon. Frankly, I doubt you are capable of improving upon the work of Aaron McGruder. Your action only results in changing his message. You deprive me of what I paid to read.

George Bush declines to answer questions about his drug use. I am free to take that lack of denial as an implicit admission. I'm sure millions do not reserve judgment as you do. If George doesn't like it maybe he should sue. That will certainly give the issue a good airing. You need not be his personal advocate.

You claim your actions are not censorship. Semantics aside, you have silenced a voice for the day. The remedy for bad speech is not silencing such speech but the use of more speech. That is how adversarial newspapers existed in the days before homogenized, so called "objective" journalism.