New York Times Ombudsman Replies to Your Complaints

NYT ombudsman David Okrent has posted the following statement at http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/danielokrent/index.html?offset=13&fid=.f555e99/13:

On Tuesday, March 2, cartoonist Ted Rall posted this on his “”:

If you read my cartoons at the New York Times website, you may have noticed a hole on the comics page where my work used to appear. It seems that, under the dismally lame cover of ‘moving in a different direction,’ my cartoons were the only feature out of 10 (all supplied by Universal Press Syndicate) that the Times saw fit to drop.

Rall went on to assert that although he believes a newspaper (or, implicitly, a Web site) has the right to publish what it wishes, he feels that The Times has dropped his work from NYTimes.com because “they’re annoyed by receiving so many e-mail complaints about my work — all of them motivated by partisan politics.”

The Times, of course, has a different story. Len Apcar, the editor responsible for NYTimes.com, issued a statement that explained his position. “After two years of monitoring cartoons by Ted Rall,” Apcar said in part, “we have decided that, while he often does good work, we found some of his humor was not in keeping with the tone we try to set for our Web site.”

Here is the full statement:

After two years of monitoring cartoons by Ted Rall we have decided that, while he often does good work, we found some of his humor was not in keeping with the tone we try to set for our Web site. As of late February, his cartoons are no longer available through our Web site. Readers wishing to read his cartoons can find them at www.tedrall.com.

While NYTimes.com and its parent company support the right of free expression, we also recognize an obligation to assure our users that what we publish, no matter what its origin, does not offend the reasonable sensibilities of our audience.

NYTimes.com is continually evaluating the tools and services we provide. We appreciate your feedback and will share it with our colleagues.

Separately, Apcar told me that “I enjoy cartoons and I certainly like to laugh but Ted Rall’s work often didn’t pass the laugh test. Worse, it was offensive too often.”

On principle, I hold with Apcar. Although I happen to think that Rall, while ferociously partisan, can be absolutely brilliant, a lot of his work just doesn’t fit in The Times’s self-defined environment. If you look at some of the cartoons NYTimes.com chose not to publish in the months before pulling the plug altogether, and if you’re familiar with the somewhat demure language and imagery the paper prefers, you will immediately see the disconnect. The following urls will point you to Rall pieces that Apcar and his associates objected to over the past few months, and whether or not you find them offensive (warning: you well might), they certainly aren’t Timesian:

www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2004/01/12/

www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2003/11/20/

www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2003/12/01/

They are clearly at odds with the tone of a paper that shrinks from language that wouldn’t bring a blush to the face of most 10-year-olds I know.

But I’m tempted to differ with Apcar’s solution. Why not just continue what he and his colleagues have been doing, rejecting Rall cartoons that don’t meet Times standards? It’s worked up until now. Then again, I’m not the one who would have to make the choice every day, and sometimes things like this can just make your head hurt. It’s not as if Ted Rall is disappearing from the Web; if you want your daily dose, go to www.tedrall.com. It’s a choice you can make, just as Len Apcar has made his.

It’s worth pointing out that Okrent disagrees with his paper’s final “solution” to the perceived “tone” problem with my cartoons. (Interestingly, the print edition of the Times doesn’t seem to have a problem with my work.) That said, if the Times prefers the “demure” language suitable for ten-year-old readers, it’s nice of them to say so.

As for the examples they posted, I stand by them. And they’ve all been published by many, many other daily newspapers, which might prompt the question: Where does the NY Times stand on the ideological spectrum? As the most small-c conservative newspaper in the United States?