Concord Monitor mea culpa over the Marland cartoon (GW Bush flies into WTC/Social Security)

Judgment is at the heart of my job as editor of the Monitor, and because judgment is subjective, it can be wrong as well as right. The decision to run Mike Marland's Friday editorial cartoon was mine alone, and it was a mistake.

The cartoon depicted a caricature of George Bush flying a toy plane toward the World Trade Center. Marland had written "Social" on one tower and "Security" on the other.

Marland is a free-lancer. He's a terrific cartoonist, and we've been lucky to have him on the Monitor's editorial pages for nearly 20 years. Perhaps some readers remember that in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 his cartoons captured American grief, anger and resolve. We've reprinted one of them with this column.

I first saw the Bush cartoon Thursday night on a proof of the next day's editorial page. I knew instantly it would be controversial, meaning I knew there would be a public outcry if we ran it.

That alone is not reason enough to pull an editorial cartoon. An editorial cartoonist's function in life is to provoke. Whenever I see a cartoon that I think might be too provocative, I ask myself whether the reaction I am experiencing is an impulse to edit or an impulse to censor. If it is the latter, I err on the side of publishing and resolve to take the heat if there is any.

That was my thought pattern with Marland's Bush cartoon. I thought that rejecting the cartoon would be censorship. The attack on the trade towers was a singular, devastating event, but my own reaction to the cartoon was not visceral. Rather, I read it as I thought Marland had intended it: as strong criticism of the threat that Bush's budget poses to Social Security.

On Friday, after the cartoon ran, I spoke with Marland to tell him I was writing this column. One idea behind the cartoon, he said, was that the terrorist attack had had a direct bearing on Bush's budget and the fate of Social Security. But my decision to run the cartoon assumed that for others, as for myself, enough time had passed for the wounds of Sept. 11 to heal and for the terrorist attacks to take their place in the long history of political satire. Sometimes artists, including political cartoonists, get there before the rest of us. I thought this might be such a time. In retrospect, the decision was wrong for three interrelated reasons.

First, I should have foreseen that most readers' reaction to the cartoon would have nothing to do with Bush and Social Security. That was Marland's intended subject, and since there was nothing subtle about his message on the issue, there was no question readers would understand it. But their principal response would be to the use of the tower tragedy in a cartoon.

That was the second reason I should have spiked the cartoon: The spot where the towers stood is sacred territory. Yes, the country has had time to pass through all the stages of grief, but the World Trade Center site remains a symbol of national sorrow. Probably that will be true long after the events of Sept. 11 have passed from human memory.

Finally, running the cartoon was a mistake because we live in the world of the Internet. A local editor no longer makes decisions in a vacuum. Residents of Central New Hampshire took the events of Sept. 11 and their aftermath personally, but personal connections to those events were few. Had I been an editor in New York City, there is no way I would have even considered publishing this cartoon.

Well, these days, news travels fast. Even though Marland's cartoon was copyrighted, it was on the Internet by midday Friday. Monitor editors' e-mail queues and voice mails were soon filled with messages from New York and elsewhere expressing disgust and anger over the cartoon.

When we decided to run the cartoon, I did not even consider this possibility. I should have, and that alone should have kept me from running it.

I'm sorry we ran it. Marland intended it to provoke, not offend. Generally I try to see things not just through my own eyes but also through the eyes of readers. I wish I had been wise enough to do that in this case.

And think about the fact that the evil ones are so utterly decadent that they actually used babies as weapons! Yes, there were children as young as 2 years old on those airplanes that crashed into those buildings!!! Babies for bullets is just more than I can take ..... there isn't anything funny about that in any way!

And then think about all the children and babies who now don't have a parent ..... think about Lisa Beamer's daughter, born last month, who will never know her father.

Think about the number of people who have lost a spouse, or a son or daughter.

Think about the ones injured in the crash who were lucky enough to survive but who will bear scars the rest of their lives.

I can't find any humor material in any of that!!!

Those liberal pieces of trash may be able to put such images out of their minds but I will NEVER FORGET!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the response to Mr. Pride's retraction:

Re: Why we shouldn't have run Mike Marland's cartoon

Mr. Pride,

I am somewhat gratified by your light retraction of Mike Marland's incredibly offensive editorial cartoon. However, your continued support of Mr. Marland and his mindset of using the incredible atrocity of September 11, 2001 to misrepresent President Bush's budgetary policy, in my opinion, nullifies any and all effort spent on your part. You might respect his talent as an artist but his judgement needs to be seriously questioned. He might even be a personal friend of yours, but the publication of the cartoon represents gross editorial malpractice on your part. It is as offensive as printing a caricature of Aunt Jemima eating fried chicken and watermelon with a welfare check stuffed in her back pocket to represent Black History Month.

You make several errors in your retraction.

Though Mr. Marland's cartoon might be copyrighted, it does not prevent fair use by private citizens in the course of public debate. As a seasoned editor, you should know better. That is basic Journalism Law 3001 at the Manship School of Journalism at Louisiana State University -- a fortunate experience of mine in college. I happened to be one of the individuals that reproduced the image under fair use on the World Wide Web for debate over its content and not commercial gain. Feel free to engage me in legal action over this. I would welcome the occasion to take this to court and further promote your editorial common sense to a national audience as the case would no doubt become. Reply to me and I will send over the relevant contact information so we can legally engage in your perceived copyright infringement. However, I feel you will want to sweep this major editorial error as quickly under the proverbial carpet as possible -- as I am sure your publisher and advertisers who financially supported this travesty would.

As an editor of a private publication, you have no ability to censor. Censorship can only occur by the actions of a governmental body. Your decisions as an editor are not a function of censorship but of the natural editorial process. Everyday of your career as an editor, you make decisions as to what should and should not appear within the pages of the Concord Monitor. That should be a function of your experience and common sense. If you wished to have excluded Mike Marland's repugnant editorial cartoon, he would still be free to publish it in other publications without fear of governmental intervention. You give yourself undue flattery over this statement and your ability to prevent Mr. Marland's constitutionally protected ability to express himself. We all have the right to speak but not to be heard.

You claim at some point in the future that the September 11th atrocity will be legitimate fuel for editorial cartoonists. Do you think the sunken grave of the U.S. Arizona is legitimate editorial fuel after 60 years? Would editorial common sense allow you to publish a Mike Marland editorial cartoon that desecrated the grave of the brave men that perished from the unprovoked assault of the Japanese on December 7, 1941? I doubt it nor do I think in the future the World Trade Center will be legitimate fodder for cantankerous editorial cartoonists. However, your editorial decision in publishing the Mike Marland cartoon has already crossed that line. A decision, I feel, you will carry as a heavy burden the rest of your career.

The correct response by you to this editorial error should have been a full apology without reservations or explanation. To further qualify your decision in the editorial process does nothing but excuse the action as if it was the mistake of spilling milk on a clean table. I would suggest that Concord Monitor take the advertising revenue from the Friday edition and pledge it to the thousands upon thousands of my grieving neighbors through one of the various charities seeking to meet their needs.

Sincerely yours,

Robert M. Toups, Jr.
(personal contact information deleted for WWW publication)

Looks like "Operation Freep Monitor" was a complete success. Thanks to all that pitched in! Free Speech is a mighty weapon. I can't believe the White House jumped into the fray! Do we rock or what?!?!?

Great. Another moron who doesn't understand what the word "censorship" means. This dim bulb can't censor anyone; not unless he's a government employee and isn't telling us. Only the government can censor material. The rest of us merely edit material. Censorship is when the government says this will or that won't be printed. An editor doing his job, or a newspaper owner turning down material is not censoring anyone. They are making professional choices about what they will present. Once again, that isn't censorship since no government entity is involved. When a consumer decides not to purchase material, that isn't censorship either.

This loon has bought into the liberal schtick that claims that any attempt to stop a liberal's opinion from being transmitted is censorship; whether that be by an editor doing his job or a consumer who refuses to buy the lib's product. Mind you, it's only the liberal who has the right not only to free speech, but also to a guaranteed audience in this way of thinking. Similar action against conservative thought is not, in their minds, censorship; it's just editing in that case! This idiot's supposed hand-wringing about "censorship" is nothing more than a smokescreen. He let it in not out of fear of "censoring" anyone, but because he didn't want to do his job as an editor.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.