Tell Them We Won’t Shut Up!

Right-wing bloggers are at it again. It wasn’t enough to get my cartoons pulled from The New York Times–now they say my “whining” about it is unseemly. Of course, the warbloggers like to keep this tactic to themselves, they’re so damned good at it. But to hell with that.

If you’re tired of losing every cultural and political battle, then please join me in mimicking the relentlessness of the right. Write to the Times to let them know how you feel about them pulling my cartoons in response (solely, as they admit) due to Republican pressure:

Martin Nisenholtz, CEO of New York Times Digital

New York Times Letters to the Editor

Ombudsman Daniel Okrent

I don’t stand to make a penny either way–this is solely about the First Amendment.

Chart o’ the Day

The above chart, which will be published in my upcoming book WAKE UP, YOU’RE LIBERAL, is one of my favorite things ever. It demonstrates that, on average, Republicans always preside over periods of increasing unemployment while Democrats usually preside over periods of economic boom. About the worst Democratic presidents ever do is under Carter, and even he only saw a tiny net increase in unemployment.

With luck Americans will someday notice that their best chance of making a living rests with electing Democrats.

New Column to Add Exclusive Details to NYT.com Cartoon Censorship Story

My syndicated column this week will include new details about New York Times Digital’s decision to censor my cartoons solely because right-wing bloggers deluged them with complaint letters. The column goes online late this evening and will be sent to subscribing newspapers this afternoon.

False Alarm on Yahoo

Many of you have written to ask whether Yahoo! was joining the New York Times in its indefensible decision to censor my cartoons solely due to content (the paper’s statement that my “tone” is incompatable with theirs falls apart when you consider that they’ve been running my work since 1991).

Not to worry.

Their tech people say that a glitch is responsible for bringing up a comic strip instead of my cartoons on the Yahoo! subscription page. It should be repaired shortly.

Thanks, More Please

Hundreds of people have written to the New York Times since the story broke in Editor & Publisher and elsewhere, including Tom Tomorrow’s popular blog, about the paper’s website’s decision to drop my cartoons–a decision that they admit was in reaction to getting tired of dealing with reader (i.e., right-wing) complaint emails.

I don’t know whether your letters will make a difference relative to getting them to pick up my cartoons again, but I do hope that it will make them think twice the next time they decide to do something similar. If censors face as many complaints from outraged readers as non-censors do from outraged nonreaders, the balance of power may begin to shift. In the meantime, I recommend keeping on the pressure. If you haven’t yet written to the Times, please do so. And if you’re just looking for a website that carries my cartoons, you can come here, or to the Washington Post, or any number of other sites.

NY Times Censorship: Please Tell Them To Find a Spine

If the usual pattern prevails, the New York Times website can rest assured that their cowardly and lazy decision to drop my cartoons as the result of a concerted right-wing blogger email campaign will go unpunished. People will move on, other issues will rise to the surface, my readers will learn to find my cartoons here on my website or at The Washington Post.

The Times has the right to cancel cartoons or columns for taste reasons, even for politics. But they admit that they’re responding directly to specific complaints of right-wing readers (probably non-readers, but whatever). Kowtowing to a special interest group sets a dangerous precedent. The only way they’ll reverse course is if you let them know. Please keep the pressure on by emailing the following addresses:

Martin Nisenholtz, CEO of New York Times Digital

New York Times Letters to the Editor

Ombudsman Daniel Okrent

A reminder: I don’t stand to earn a penny if the Times runs my cartoons again. They weren’t paying me for them anyway. And I have never complained about being dropped before. This is solely about freedom of expression, and the Times’ unique intersection of cowardice and laziness. The Times cartoon section has been censored, Soviet-style: even my archives, the last five years of cartoons that they specifically approved of, have been excised by the Stalinists at Times Digital.

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?

Editor & Publisher Covers NYT.com Censorship

Their story is here. There’s also a mention on Jim Romenesko’s media industry news.

Here’s the lead:

NEW YORK—NYTimes.com said it canceled the use of Ted Rall’s editorial cartoons effective March 1 because they didn’t fit “the tone” of the popular Web site.

When asked why the decision was made, New York Times Digital Spokesperson Christine Mohan said in an e-mail: “After two years of monitoring cartoons by Ted Rall we 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 NYTimes.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.”

Boilerplate denial language, but notice the key points. “After two years…” What happened two years ago? “Terror Widows.” That controversial cartoon, which put me on right-wing hit lists, ran on March 30, 2002. “Reasonable sensibilities”?!? My work runs in numerous “family newspapers,” including the print edition of the New York Times itself where, for several years, it has been the most frequently reprinted cartoon in the paper.

Truth is, the “tone” of my work is not at issue here. Content is–specifically political content. The ONLY reason they’re dropping me is because they’re tired of dealing with Republican hate mail–most of it from people who don’t even read the New York Times, but fire off rote complaints against liberal bête noires as part of their daily regimen.

As I wrote before (scroll down), this isn’t about money. New York Times Digital wasn’t paying me any. It’s not even about exposure–online readers can find my cartoons at other websites, including those of prestigious daily newspapers that don’t have any problem with my “tone.”

I have to hand it to the right. While progressives throw up their hands and wonder at the dismal state of affairs in this country, they’re ceaselessly working to eliminate voices that try to move things in a different direction. That’s why Clear Channel Communications, for instance, retaliated against Howard Stern’s endorsement of John Kerry by dropping him. Had the same thing happened to Rush, right-wingers would have created a shitstorm, but not the left: Stern’s callers urged him to fight back. As he replied, there’s nothing he can do. In other words, it’s up to US to fight.

There’s nothing I can do either.

Editor & Publisher Magazine to Cover NYT.com Censorship Story

I don’t know what comments the guys at New York Times Digital had for Editor & Publisher trade magazine, but I’m told that there will be a piece online tomorrow (Thursday) morning. I look forward to reading what they have to say, though I don’t imagine that they’ll come up with more than the usual “changing our direction” BS.

Meanwhile, thanks to those who have already written to the Times! The heat is on, but we have to pursue the same dogged determination as the Republican bloggers if we’re to win this free speech battle. If you haven’t done so already, please scroll down and email the Times Digital editors and ombudsman.

ALERT: New York Times Caves to Republican Pressure, Cancels Ted Rall’s Cartoons

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.

My trouble with the Times website dates back to the “terror widows” controversy. That cartoon, which appeared in March 2002, became the target of a coordinated email attack by right-wing “warbloggers.” These pro-Bush bloggers, coasting on a wave of post-9/11 patriotism, sent out emails to their followers (helpful souls forwarded some to me) asking each other to deluge the Times and other papers with complaints that purported to come from their readers. The Times, under the mistaken belief that hundreds of their readers had complained about the cartoon, dropped that particular piece.

As I said at the time, it’s their paper. They can run what they like. And I still believe that.

Since that time, the Times website has been lackadaisical about maintaining my link to their site. Cartoons often went days without geting posted. It seems that the warbloggers consistent campaign of email harrassment has finally taken its toll over at Times Digital. Because they’re annoyed by receiving so many email complaints about my work–all of them motivated by partisan politics–the Times has decided to drop my cartoons entirely.

Other cartoonists have decried the censorship of their cartoons over political (rather than quality) concerns, but never me. I’ve always believed that papers can run whatever they want–or not. But this is different. For one thing, no money is involved. That’s right–I didn’t get one penny from the Times for running my work online. The syndicate was giving them the content for free–for the exposure, as they say. So when I ask for your help, please rest assured that this isn’t some cheesy financial appeal. If the Times picks me up again, it won’t make any difference to my checkbook.

The fact of the matter is that what the Times has done here to me–and to you–represents a dangerous precedent for a free press (or, in this case, an online press). They’ve sent the message that political pressure works. It’s one thing for an editor to decide that a cartoon no longer works for editorial reasons, or that it’s not as good as it used to be. It’s quite another to cancel it simply because you’re tired of being deluged with hate mail. Dealing with feedback is an editor’s job. If you don’t like the hate mail, delete it.

If you agree that the Times’ stifling of a progressive editorial voice sets a dangerous precedent, please tell them:

Martin Nisenholtz, CEO of New York Times Digital

New York Times Letters to the Editor

Ombudsman Daniel Okrent