Whether you are a “Doonesbury” fan or critic, you probably know that artist Garry Trudeau often skewers politicians.
So some readers were surprised this week at an editors’ note explaining that 2009 cartoons were used instead of new cartoons described as having “strong partisan content based on an unpublished book.”
Sarah Palin was mentioned, and that prompted questions from readers: Isn’t “Doonesbury” always strongly partisan? Is the newspaper afraid to criticize Palin? Is the popular former governor of Alaska getting special treatment?
AJC editors say it wasn’t the subject of the strip but rather the unusual nature of the content that called for special treatment.
Trudeau based this series of comic strips on an unpublished book by author Joe McGinniss. You probably have heard of McGinniss; he’s written several true crime and political books and he made news by renting the house next door to the Palin family in Wasilla, Alaska, to do research for the new book, which is to be released Tuesday. The book apparently includes material about Palin’s parenting and personal life, as well as criticism of her actions as governor. The cartoon satirizes Palin’s popularity by poking fun at character Roland Hedley, a fictional Fox News reporter, and his positive spin on the revelations.
Because details of the book are only now emerging, when AJC editors made their decision Palin had not yet commented and reviewers and political journalists had not assessed the credibility of the book or its sources. (It has since been reviewed, and has been described by a New York Times reviewer as petty and unsubstantiated gossip, often from unnamed sources.)
We expect “Doonesbury” to offer strong and sometimes partisan commentary on the news. The AJC editors felt, however, that, in this case, “Doonesbury” would be reporting tidbits from the book for the first time, without information that would give readers context to evaluate the material. It would be like having the headlines without the story or running allegations without Palin’s response and without knowing the source. “We didn’t believe the comics page was the right place to introduce the content of this controversial book,” AJC Editor Kevin Riley wrote on his Facebook page.
Some readers agreed with that rationale, but others did not.
“I appreciate the responsible journalism,” one reader wrote.
“I think people can differentiate between news and a satirical comic strip,” another wrote.
Another reader pointed out that even if the cartoon broke “news,” Palin would have no difficulty getting her side of the story out, with millions of Facebook and Twitter followers. Other readers said holding a cartoon to journalistic standards was a mistake.
Riley acknowledged the decision was not an easy one. “We are in the business of printing news, so a decision to hold something back from readers is always tough to make. We know we will get criticized by some readers, but ultimately we need to be able to defend the work we publish.”
I can see both sides. The journalistic instinct to make sure sensational allegations are accompanied by responsible reporting and context is a good one. At the same time, Trudeau’s cartoons are a part of an ongoing story that many readers don’t want to miss.
The newspaper was not trying to suppress the contents of the cartoon strips or the McGinniss book. The note on “Doonesbury” in print this week provided a link for readers to see the Palin strips if they wanted to go online. If the McGinniss book makes news, the paper will certainly carry stories about it.
This decision was not censorship, it was editing, based on our commitment to full and fair reporting. Whether you agree with the AJC editors or not, I hope you understand that editing is ultimately about our responsibility to readers, not just to McGinniss or Trudeau or Palin. We believe readers want context for serious allegations in our pages, and in this case the book plug via comic strip simply did not provide it.
About the Author
