In today’s “For Better Or For Worse” as it was run in New York Newsday, April and her aspiring musician friends are practicing in the school band room, only to discover school bully Jeremy seated outside the door. When April invites him in saying, “We need an audience,” Jeremy replies, “What you need is a giant vacuum, loser…” and walks off in the fourth panel announcing, “Your music stinks.”
Not much of a knee slapper? Lynn Johnston have an off day? Well, not really. A closer look at the last word reveals that the letters between “s” and “k” have been erased, and the letters “tin” have been jammed in by a different hand with a darker pen. That’s right: The original punchline was “Your music sucks.” Which itself isn’t the height of hilarity, but at least prompts a smile, makes sense, and sounds like something a kid would say. Instead, thanks to the (and I use the word loosely) edit, Jeremy comes across like “Biff” in “Back to the Future” saying, “Why don’t you make like a tree and get outta here.”
“Zits” ran into all kinds of problems a few months ago when papers got their knickers in a twist over Jeremy exclaiming something sucked. This in turn provoked the Sunday strip wherein “sucks” was used repeatedly in all manner of utterly benign ways until the final panel that had Jeremy’s bellowing “This sucks!” obscured by black tape while his mother tsk-tsks over his language, rightly skewering the idiocy of banning this context from the comics pages. Apparently, though, it’s still a hot button issue. Or at least it’s a hot button issue when someone named “Jeremy” says it since that’s the moniker of both offending characters.
A quick check on line indicates that, indeed, the original punchline was “”Your music sucks.”
I’m not sure at what level this occurred. It’s hard to believe it transpired at syndicate level because, if Johnston had been told to change it, she could have at least rewritten Jeremy’s set-up line as well. “What you need is a giant skunk” or “a rotting body” or “air freshener” or *something* having to do with smell, so two strips could be provided in order to accommodate the faint of heart.
But in New York? We have faint of heart in New York? We’re usually the market that runs the strips everyone else in the country freaks out about. I’m just hoping this didn’t occur at the newspaper level and some schmuck in the Newsday editorial department took it upon himself to change Johnston’s dialogue. Because that would, y’know…suck. And possibly also blow.
Perhaps all the comic strip artists should get together and coordinate it so “that sucks” appears in every single comic strip. April 1, maybe. Or maybe March 15, the Ides of March. Call it “Suckfest 2004.”
PAD
• 
Like Janet Jackson, it was just a writer’s ploy to get attention/ratings 🙂
Hmmm, is it really that big a thing n the States to say something sucks? Personally I have to admit to not getting the sexual connotation (since when were Blow-jobs a bad thing?)and simply saw the appellation as refering to sucking the life out of something.
However there are worse out there, jerk has been brought up already, from the phrase to ‘Jërk øff’ – mášŧûrbáŧë. Yet here in the UK there’s the expression ‘Not giving a toss’ or calling someone a ‘tosser’. Both of which refer to mášŧûrbáŧìøņ ‘tossing yourself off’ is to mášŧûrbáŧë. Yet you’ll hear the expressions used all the time, because people have better things to do with their time than worry about mild language.
The editing out of the word ‘sucks’ is so strange as to make me think this was infact some form of early Aprils Fool prank.
On the matter of the actual substitution – it’s editing, bad editing admittedly, but editing nonetheless. As PAD pointed out the change of the punchline should have prompted a change to the lead-up for it to make sense, but maybe the editor vacilated over the decision until the last moment.
Anyway that’s my take on it.
PAD said “I’m just hoping this didn’t occur at the newspaper level and some schmuck in the Newsday editorial department took it upon himself to change Johnston’s dialogue.”
I’m wondering if perhaps Newsday policy limits the use of the word. (do they still use it in ZITS?) Newsday actively markets to elementary schools. It’s written at about a 4th grade level and includes the Kidsday section. I’m probably being generous with the benefit of the doubt, but if it’s the case, I support their right to the policy so long as it’s consistently enforced.
Spooon said “….no change should be made without the artist’s consent….”
Just to further push the envelope on the BOTD, I wonder what the timetable is on this kind of thing. Does the paper get the comic strips a day or a week or a month before publication? If there wasn’t time to work with the artist, what do they do? Maybe “s—BLEEP.” As sloppy as this edit job was (and boy howdy was it if they didn’t even think to edit the website)I’d be more offended if they chose to omit the whole strip for the day.
Now my own pet peeve….I’ll be watching Stargate SG-1 on SciFi, which has a big G in the upper left corner of my TV set, while my kids play nearby. Sometimes I’ll click away when I can tell something sorta scary or gross is coming up. But then they go to commercial and between ads for DirecTV and Sensodyne toothpaste comes a promo saying “What if your roommate drank blood or slept hanging from metal hooks in the ceiling or buried you in animal guts….” Y’know, I don’t need that. My daughter hears that and has questions – detailed, complex, urgent questions – that I have no wish to address with a six year old. That’s not part of the bargain.
Bladestar said “If I see/hear something I don’t like that offends me, I, Me, I get to make the choice of changing the channel….” and I totally agree with this. In this case though, I feel like I’ve already met this requirement; I chose to watch a show with a big G all up there. Am I supposed to stop watching SciFi altogether? Would TPTB at SciFi think so? I’m almost pìššëd enough to do just that, but going cold-turkey on SG-1 would REALLY —-.
Janice,
WAH! Wah! Wah!
I agree that airing commercials like that during programming listed and billed as “G” rated is wrong, and SciFi needs to be smacked by their audience for it. So yes, if their practice offends you, THEN TELL THEM AND STOP WATCHING! Or tape it and watch it when the kids aren’t around.
Yo just hit the OTHER BIG BUTTON for me… they are your kids, so they are YOUR problem! Do not, I repeat do NOT expect everyone else to suffer over YOUR decision to get knocked up and have a kid.
You have a kid, you have to sacrifice.
Again, I agree that running non-G ads during G programming is stupid, but that should be strictly between the viewer and the network. If SciFi wants to run the ad during G programs, then you have to decide:
1) Tape it to watch later
2) Complain to SciFi about your concerns
3) Quit your bìŧçhìņg and quit watching (BUT you MUST tell SciFi WHY you quit watching, otherwise they don’t know about why you quit, of course, if you aren’t a Neilsen family, they’ll never know you even watch, must less stop watching)
Quit being passive, voice your opinion. If they choose to ignore your concerns, then STOP watching. But don’t tell others they can’t.
This obviously differs from the Topic at hand, as you express no problem with Stargate, just the way ScfFi handles it’s promotional programming.
Hey Bladestar:
Just so you know, I do know what an editor’s job entails. Any reporter who is employed at any newspaper knows that whatever they write is subject to being edited or not run at all. What an editor CAN NOT do, or at least is not supposed to do, is substantively change what someone writes, and while the paper that changed what FBOW originally wrote ruined the joke, I don’t think the change was substantive enough to truly call it “censorship”. Furthermore, these same bastions of free speech have editorial pages where people write in and their letters are often “edited for clarity and brevity”.
Bladestar,
I’m delighted that you agree with me.
As for your big button, I said absolutely nothing to suggest that others suffer, bend, adjust, conform or act in any way with respect to my….decisions.
Thank you for your suggestions. I’ll be pursuing none of the alternatives you suggest as I’m not looking to expend a lot of energy on this. As I said, this is a pet peeve. I’m not looking to lead a revolution over this. One day, if I choose to effect major change in the world, it’ll be over something important, like why all the really good pizza places don’t deliver.
Until then, I’ll continue to enjoy polite conversation with others who post here, and I’ll skip reading your posts as you chose to be awfully rude to me when I did nothing to deserve it.
This “editing” also happened last week in “Get Fuzzy” when Rob referred to peeson as a “crackhead” in the Los Angeles Times, but was called something els( a crack pot or something head I can’t recall at the moment) in the local Daily Breeze. I guess creackehead was to strong a pejorative for one paper.
Is there anyone who thinks Lynn sabotaged her own joke like this? If not, who gets to decide what stays and what gets changed? This isn’t someone deciding “This is offensive, let’s not run it”; this is someone deciding “This is offensive; but if I change this word to that word, it’s just fine!” At the risk of being bathetic, a few centuries ago many of Shakespeare’s plays were edited down to be made less offensive and upsetting; guess which versions lasted? And who here is in favor of the censo– I’m sorry, the edited versions?
For the people worried about their kids reading “bad” things in the comics, what about the other strips? (I can’t think of any Doonesbury examples, but Dilbert frequently has people dying or ready to kill.)
And for those who can’t see using the word “sucks” in anything but a sexual context, here’s another Simpsons line that is — shockingly! — aired before 8 P.M.: “Yeah, Moe, that team sure did suck last night. That just plain sucked. I’ve seen teams suck before, but they were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked.”
If if makes you feel better, change the “suck” to “stink.” It’s still sort of funny, and I’m sure Matt Groening won’t mind at all! So there’s no need to ask him!
BTW, a big shout out to PAD for a very fun role in COMIC BOOK: THE MOVIE. So PAD, did you come up with that nice acronym on your own?
Ha! Harrisburg’s Patriot News had “sucks!”
Woo hoo!!!!
Oh, and Janice, if your daughter asks why this guy is hanging from metal hooks or drinking blood, here’s what you tell her:
“Dear, some people in this world are just fûçkëd up and now we have TV shows to celebrate this morons and give them their 15 minutes of fame. That’s why they do that.”
Just to further push the envelope on the BOTD, I wonder what the timetable is on this kind of thing. Does the paper get the comic strips a day or a week or a month before publication?
From what I’ve read about newspaper comics syndication, normal pace is that artists work at least six weeks ahead of publication — sometimes more, if an artist is planning to go on vacation, sometimes less (strips with timely political content, such as Doonesbury probably have shorter lead times).
Allowing time for a batch of strips to go through the syndicator and out to subscribing newspapers, I’d think that the subscribing newspaper might well see strips as much as two or three weeks prior to publication, but that’s guesswork on my part.
I noticed that a few days ago (January 21st to be exact) a line in Darby Conley’s Get Fuzzy was altered. Rob calls an apraiser a “crackhead” in the on-line version, but in our local paper it’s printed as “chowderhead”
I think that sucks as well!
Wow, “sucks” gets banned in NYC, but in backwater Spokane we get the unrated, director’s cut version.
Go figure.
Also in Get Fuzzy, Bucky Katt gave a TV guy the finger. Sure, it was blurred like they do faces on TV, but you know what he was doing and it was a big picture. Guess that isn’t is bad as the word “sucks.”
Well, I remember Bloom County dealing with the issue, but I’m in the camp that doesn’t honestly care about For Better or Worse, since it was never funny (and I’m fairly certain it was supposed to be).
The philosophical aspect, however, intrigues me; after all, when an edit is both poorly done and makes no sense, who is it protecting? I mean, people who are offended by the word already know the word as a pejorative, thus cannot logically be protected from it simply by being shielded from a single instance.
I have this memory from my childhood of Kelly LeBrock telling Bill Paxton, “I can be a real wench if I [don’t get my way]” (forgive me, John Hughes purists, but I’ve forgotten the latter half of the line). Now, Bill Paxton knew she was saying “bìŧçh,” my parents knew she was saying “bìŧçh,” and I, in my formative years, knew she was saying “bìŧçh,” but instead of just hearing it and moving on, this one instance of the use of the word “bìŧçh” that I would otherwise have forgotten has lodged itself in my brain permanently.
Though I find the practice absurd and criticize its use, I have to disagree with Bladestar; censorship is not inherently evil. After all, we all censor ourselves whenever we socialize. You don’t call your horrible co-worker a “bìŧçh” to her face, even when you call her one to everyone else you know and are probably thinking it every minute you’re in her presence — you’re censoring yourself (and no, SER, the definition of “censorship” says nothing about government involvement. An editor’s job is to censor content — you’re just making a semantic argument about definition, though the distinction you mention is an important one). That’s the same practice a newspaper uses via its editor.
You’re wrong about it being evil, Bladestar, and here’s why: censorship is a necessity. The Supreme Court didn’t make a mistake by allowing newspapers to self-censor because they couldn’t have legally ordered them not to. A newspaper is a privately-owned entity, one which ultimately reflects its ownership. You’ve seen those disclaimers before topical hot-button talk shows about the opinions expressed not reflecting that of the management. Well, not every article and column can come with that every week, and it’s never assumed. A newspaper that offends its readers unapolagetically loses its readers, which is why editors do their thing. If the government forced newspapers to print every word submitted by people they hired, they would be violating the newspaper’s freedom of speech (I think that was mentioned above), which is ultimately the most important one. After all, the alternative to editing content is to fire every writer that submits something controversial, which is just insane.
As for comic strips, the paper pays the Syndicate for the right to print them. Nothing is made of how the newspaper chooses to print them, because nothing can be; privately owned entities are not required to acknowledge the value of art. Just like tv stations have to be able to censor Kelly LeBrock when she calls herself a bìŧçh, the newspaper has to be able to censor content that does not reflect the nature of the paper.
Finally, what was said above is absolutely true; a person is much more likely to drop the paper when their favorite strip is dropped for a day (especially in the case of a serial like FBOFW) than when a portion of one or two panels are obscured.
Wasn’t the original slang phrase that got the masses started using suck to describe a bad thing, “Go suck an egg”? Or was it “Go suck a lemon”? I’m pretty sure I remember Eddie Haskill, Wally the Beaver using one (or maybe both) of those phrases.
Anyhoo this just further illustrates how there seems to be a puritanical movement sweeping the nation.
Oops, there should be an “and” after Wally. 🙂
Censorship is generally applied to an action taken by a government or ruling authority. However, in the broad sense in regards to this strip–if it was indeed done at the newspaper level–I would define it as follows:
If the newspaper was concerned that the strip would offend readers and therefore decided not to run that day’s strip, I would term that “editorial prerogative.”
If a newspaper editor is concerned that the strip would offend readers–or even found it personallyh offensive–and took it upon himself to alter the final product, I woujld term that “censorship.”
I mean, let’s say that you have a comic strip editor who has liberal leanings, and the readership is liberal. And he decides that “Mallard Filmore” is a one-note strip and offensive. So he starts changing the punchlines to have conservatives be the perpetual butt rather than liberals. Is that acceptable? If not, how is it different?
PAD
Oh dear, Miss Janice is ignoring me, how can my world go on?
By the way Janice, tell Thor I said Hi!
Sorry, I still contend censorship is inherently evil. Your community standards are not mine, and my community standards are not youts. Neither of us should have any control over what the other sees and reads.
(And before some moron claims “What about shouting “Fire!” in a movie theater? or libel/slander? Hurting people physically and and financially (reputation can be everything these days) is basically wrong, but “feelings” and “sensibilities” are too subjective to qualify for such protection.
Oh dear, Miss Janice is ignoring me, how can my world go on?
Because nobody in their right mind cares what you have to say?
Of course, what you said to her was neither appropriate nor necessary.
If you go and watch The Lion King on tv and the commercials are for the pørņ shop down the street, you have a dámņ good reason to be upset.
Everything that applies to tv shows seems to go out the window when it comes to the commercials.
This year’s Super Bowl is a prime example.
Someone queried about Canadian newspapers. Ottawa’s major daily, THE OTTAWA [second-class] CITIZEN carried the strip unchanged.
Hmm, and I always thought that “this sucks” was short for “this sucks eggs”…
Anyway, speaking as a foreigner, I have to wonder if the hair-splitting distinction “you only can call it censorship if it is imposed by the government” is peculiar to the US. To narrow down the meaning in that way serves no useful purpose, in fact it seems more an attempt to deny that this form of “editing” could even remotely be considered a bad thing, just like going over a piece to remove typos. (Although quite a few writers would regard the latter as an unwarranted intrusion into their artistic freedom and insist on spelling things their way, e.g. here in Germany after the fairly recent introduction of new orthography rules). Sorry, that sounds a bit too much like an attempt to silence criticism through a semantic sleight of hand.
I certainly would not hesitate to call what happend to Lynn Johnston here censorship. And if some editor had complained about the punchline to her and she had then re-written that strip, the appropriate world would have been self-censorship. (Oddly enough, I’ve never heard of anyone referring to that word as an oxymoron). People seem to have no problem referring e.g. to the Comics Code Authority as a self-censorship body, so what’s the big deal?
“Self-censorship can be somewhat inhibiting.” (Stan Lee interviewed by Fuchs and Reitberger in 1970, before he decided to print the drug-related Spider-Man stories without CCA approval the following year).
Again Craig-y, you make my point, in your example, your problem is NOT with the content of the program, it’s with the placement of the commercial. I never said don’t get mad, in fact I specifically said she SHOULD complain, to the station. NOT to the government, not to a lawyer for a lawsuit, just a complaint to the network and the reason why she was offended, then, the network can decide if it wants to shuffle its ads to more “matching” programs.
Frankly, I wouldn’t let my kids watch something like “The Lion King” on TV, that’s what the DVD is for, no commercials to worry about there…
And somethings I wouldn’t watch “live” with them anyway, I’d tape for perusal when they were around or already in bed or the like. I would NOT sue the network or demand that the government go after them…
Too many people think they have the right to control what others see/read/hear…
PAD said:
<
If a newspaper editor is concerned that the strip would offend readers–or even found it personallyh offensive–and took it upon himself to alter the final product, I woujld term that “censorship.”>>
The latter has happened to me more than once and I never considered it censorship. The editor was doing his or her job, which was to maintain the standards of the publication. Yes, it has often frustrated me. Once in a satirical piece, the editor added a parenthetical “just kidding, of course!” that softened the blow and I thought insulted the intelligence of those reading it.
This is why I use the net to self-publish. When it comes to other publications, though, I accept that they are granting me space and have the right do decide what best suits their purposes. If I don’t like that, I can look elsewhere.
The Johnston instance doesn’t strike me as odious as suppressing political opinions deemed controversial (as what has happened with Boondocks, in which strips were pulled because they might offend). It’s sort of like when they run GoodFellas on TV and butcher it. That’s not censorship. Now, the “clean” versions of Titanic that Blockbuster used to rent out is repugnant. I’m not sure where the Johnston strip falls. I don’t know the extent of her deal with the syndicate or with the individual papers.
Does Boondocks keep an up-to-date site on the web?
Yep. I read it pretty much daily.
http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/
Good stuff.
BOONDOCKS is online daily at http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks, with a 30-day archive.
The reference to ZITS’ earlier problem makes yesterday’s ZITS look VERY funny when read side-by-side with FBOFW and with that context in mind, as I’m able to do here at FLORIDA TODAY, where we run both strips (and where FBOFW ran unedited). In ZITS, Jeremy throws an open newspaper down on the table in front of his mother and declares, “Ha! There is it, in print! You were wrong and I was right!”
Almost makes you wonder whether it was planned, but FBOFW and ZITS do not come from the same syndicate…
Almost makes you wonder whether it was planned, but FBOFW and ZITS do not come from the same syndicate…
Many of the people in the strip community are quite friendly with one another. It does not split along syndicate lines.
I was surprised that my local Cincinnati newspaper ran it unedited. If anyone remembers the Maplethorpe brouhaha from a few years ago you know the city’s problem with things that are possibly offensive.
And since other people were quoting Simpsons, one of my favorite lines was Bart’s response to the school faculty talent show. “I didn’t think it was physically possible, but this both sucks AND blows.”
Bladestar wrote: “Where I differ from most of you if if I see/hear something I don’t like/that offends me, I, ME, I get to make the choice of changing the channel or not looking at it, not some bunch of bible-humping dirtbags in Wash DC or some loser editor with his own agenda.”
Ok, first off, if the editors in question were promoting their own agendas, they should be fired. If promoting their employer’s agendas, they’re just earning their paychecks. And are you really so naive that you think things you see on tv aren’t edited before you get to decide whether to change the channel?
Also: “I merely advocate freedom, while you advocate coroprate censorship and controlling what others see/hear.”
There’s a huge difference in content editing and “evil” censorship. For example, I used to be an editor at my college paper. When I edited out the abbreviation of Van Halen’s album “For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge” and replaced it with the full phrase, that was editing for content per the paper’s standards. The day we ran a story that the administration asked us not to run and all copies of the paper disappeared from the newsstands before the students could read it, well, that was censorship.
When a reporter is hired, it is with the full understanding that they do not have ultimate control over what will be published. If they want that kind of control, they need to start their own paper and control it. That’s not censorship, it’s capitalism. By your standards, an editor couldn’t even correct an inaccuracy in a news story.
Aw for cripes sake!(smile) This is getting silly. The word “sucks” is not a vulgar word. It can be made vulgar depending on the context it is used, but the context of the comic strip was such that the word “sucks” meant really bad or terrible. Oh, and Janet Jackson was not naked by any stretch of the imagination. She had a metallic pasty over her nipple. And only part of one of her breasts was revealed. Hey, Elvira’s movie “Mistress of the Dark” ends with her in Vegas twirling tasseled pasties & this was shown on broadcast TV. Geez Louise, (smirk) people! Grow up. (Ducks as he flees room)
Note the following, Bladestar:
Yo just hit the OTHER BIG BUTTON for me… they are your kids, so they are YOUR problem! Do not, I repeat do NOT expect everyone else to suffer over YOUR decision to get knocked up and have a kid.
THAT was inappropriate. Maybe you have yet to notice that.
She had a metallic pasty over her nipple.
Just for the sake of accuracy: A friend emailed me a closeup shot. Her nipple was exposed.
If a newspaper editor is concerned that the strip would offend readers–or even found it personallyh offensive–and took it upon himself to alter the final product, I woujld term that “censorship.” (PAD)
Popular usage would tend to agree with this; the “government-originated” distinction is often ignored in general conversation.
As a practical matter, though, there’s a complication — where true censorship occurs, the result is to entirely suppress the censored content. That didn’t happen here; Ms. Johnston’s readers could easily discover the original line via Internet sources. Indeed, they might have been able to do so through their local paper’s Web presence; in my experience, the Web counterparts to newspapers’ comic pages link directly from the newspaper Web site to the syndicators’ sites.
Of course, this only makes the various local editors’ efforts to rewrite the strip look more inept than they were already….
More on Censorship of Nipples
Has anyone seen what they have done when showing Scrooged on network TV? I remember there’s a line where the network censor complains about being able to see a dancer’s nipple, and Murray says, “Yes, but we want to see her nipple.”
I mean, let’s say that you have a comic strip editor who has liberal leanings, and the readership is liberal. And he decides that “Mallard Filmore” is a one-note strip and offensive. So he starts changing the punchlines to have conservatives be the perpetual butt rather than liberals. Is that acceptable? If not, how is it different? (PAD)
That kind of “editing” would of course not be legally or morally acceptable — arguably, it would constitute a form of fraud, as it would pass off the editor’s opinions as those of Mallard’s creator.
But censorship? I don’t think so. It doesn’t effectively suppress the original content; as in the present case, the original strips could easily be located via other sources. And indeed, it doesn’t suppress the strips at all; rather, it circulates them and takes advantage of the original strip’s popularity to piggyback the editor’s message.
Weirdly enough, I’d argue that were the same liberal editor to drop //Mallard Fillmore// from his paper, the result would be more akin to censorship, because dropping the strip more effectively suppresses its message (any link from the paper’s Web site would also go away, for instance).
And that’s the key. Censorship, at root, is about suppression and control, regardless of who’s doing the suppressing and controlling. Both the present case and the Fillmore example are about //substitution// of language, which is a different animal.
Popular usage would tend to agree with this; the “government-originated” distinction is often ignored in general conversation.
Maybe one of the reasons is because historically quite a bit of censorship originated from something that by US standards is not part of the government, namely religious institutions (Spinoza’s works banned by the religious leaders of Amsterdam’s Jews, the Vatican’s Index of forbidden books, Khomeini’s fatwa against “The Satanic Verses”). And I still don’t get what the use of this “distinction” should be.
As a practical matter, though, there’s a complication — where true censorship occurs, the result is to entirely suppress the censored content. That didn’t happen here; Ms. Johnston’s readers could easily discover the original line via Internet sources.
Hmm, by that rationale, doesn’t that mean that there was no censorship on East German television and radio before 1989? After all, East Germans could easily get the news they missed from West German TV and various Western radio stations. (And they were legally permitted to watch and listen to them. IIRC, near the end of the Cold War the East German government even provided Western TV to Eastern Saxony(colloquially known as “the valley of the ignorant” because it was too far from the West German border and to West Berlin to receive West German TV) so that fewer people would refuse to move there.
Thanks for the Boondocks links.
Craig, It was completely appropriate Craig-y, Janice brought up she didn’t want her kids to see that sort of commercial. A lot of the censroship crap comes from people who want teh world dumbed down for the children, so it’s even spot-on the topic of censorship, Nice try though.
Menshevik: Hmm, by that rationale, doesn’t that mean that there was no censorship on East German television and radio before 1989?
Actually, if what you’re saying is true, then… yes. I mean, if the government station presented the “official” story but other news sources were allowed to present their own journalistic perspectives, it’s not censorship. However, if the “official” story was coming from a privately-owned station that the government wouldn’t allow to present their own perspective, it’s censorship.
But censorship? I don’t think so. It doesn’t effectively suppress the original content; as in the present case, the original strips could easily be located via other sources.
That seems to be saying: “If it works, then it’s censorship, but if it doesn’t it not only isn’t censorship, it’s not even attempted censorship.”
If the editor who censored/falsified that For Better Or For Worse strip had been done a better job when s/he substituted “stinks” for “sucks”, readers might never have suspected a thing and what reason would they have to check that strip against other sources? (Even people who read more than one newspaper probably do not have or take the time to read the same strips or syndicated columns two or more times). In fact, even with the change as detectable as it is in this instance, it is highly likely that quite a few New York Newsday readers did not notice the change as they did not put the strip under close enough scrutiny.
And even if readers notice something amiss, that does not mean that checking the strip against its depiction in other sources does not take an effort that some people may consider excessive. After all, there are plenty of American cities where you only have one local newspaper (besides, buying a second one, especially an out-of-town one, costs money). Also, not everyone has access to the internet (and thus the relevant websites. (BTW, does this logic mean that the same action would have been censorship if it had happened before the internet became a mass phenomenon, but now it’s not?)
That seems to be saying: “If it works, then it’s censorship, but if it doesn’t it not only isn’t censorship, it’s not even attempted censorship.” (Menshevik)
In the specific context of the Mallard Fillmore example, I don’t think a censorship model applies for reasons already stated.
OTOH, the East German example is a different case. There, one might argue that government censors did suppress specific channels of communication over which they had a degree of control — and succeeded, to the extent that available media originating outside East Germany wouldn’t have replicated locally generated content.
(BTW, does this logic mean that the same action would have been censorship if it had happened before the internet became a mass phenomenon, but now it’s not?) (Menshevik)
Good question. In a strict sense, I’d say no; I think best usage ought to restrict the concept of “censorship” to interference with a work at the point of original distribution — that is, the goal of censorship is to suppress or alter a work before it is circulated at all.
But you’re quite correct to suggest that in a pre-Internet environment, alterations of the sort we’re discussing can amount to de facto censorship, to the extent that readers fail to realize that content has been altered.
That said, it would still be imperfect as censorship; the original would still exist, would appear in other papers, and would likely appear in its original form in the eventual book-form republication.
The distinction that it is only censorship if it originates from a government regardless of the fact that this does not actually agree with the way the words “censorship” and “to censor” are used in real life strikes me as artificial, impractical and ideologically motivated (“Government bad! Capitalism good (or at least beyond good and evil)!”) I see no need for it, as e.g. the words “censor” or “censorship” are not used in the 1st Amendment and governments at various levels exert censorship in cases of obscenity, libel, national security etc. (e.g. censoring war-correspondents’ reports, prisoners’ mail etc.).
If in the case at hand the editing/falsification had originated not from within the newspaper but from a government official (e.g. a censor appointed by the City of New York or elected by the people of New York City), and the same thing had been done for exactly the same reasons, why should I not be allowed to call it censorship in both cases? That would require more of an explanation than “because it’s obvious” or one that would apply only to the present-day US but not other English-speaking countries.
Good question. In a strict sense, I’d say no; I think best usage ought to restrict the concept of “censorship” to interference with a work at the point of original distribution — that is, the goal of censorship is to suppress or alter a work before it is circulated at all.
Which indicates to me that you are advocating your own definition of censorship that is much narrower than that underlying current usage and also would probably require a new word for censorship that existed in the past.
There is more than one form of censorship, but the two most important ones are preventive and repressive censorship. Preventive would be pretty much what you are thinking of, exerted e.g. by a government censor or the censor from the Comics Code Authority (at least when that still had teeth) who read the periodical in question and orders the necessary changes. This can be done so that it goes unnoticed, but historically that was not always the case (in Germany under the severe censorship of the post-Karlsbad years 1819-1848, it took a while for the state governments to impose rules that gaps left by words being struck by the censor had to be disguised by re-setting paragraphs or even adding text to fill up a gap in a column).
Repressive censorship may seem less efficient at first glance, but look out for the long-term effects. Here the government only intervenes after publication, but while that may not prevent everyone from getting their hands on the offending publication, the government can then hit a newspaper publisher economically by confiscating all the unsold copies it can lay its hands on, imposing a hefty fine and then suspending the publication of the paper for a week at the first offense, maybe a fortnight at the second etc. With books (higher per-unit price, but how many units will be sold before the first edition is banned and confiscated?) it could be potentially even more damaging to the publisher. This can be quite successful at cowing all but a handful of publishers into submission – and a government may then ban the production of the incorrigible ones entirely.
Another interesting question: How do we describe the phenomenon that occurred in the ante-bellum South where the distribution of anti-slavery tracts via the federal post office was prevented to a large extent by mob violence and the threat of mob violence?
That said, it would still be imperfect as censorship; the original would still exist, would appear in other papers, and would likely appear in its original form in the eventual book-form republication.
Well, perfect censorship is a very rare thing (the only example I can think of happened in Qing China when an emperor had all old books sent to the capital to assemble a definitive edition of all historical and philosophical Chinese books of the past and took the opportunity to irrevocably destroy all works containing passages deemed disrespectful of the Manchu and of imperial authority) and probably impossible in this day and age.
On a lighter note, my favorite Simpsons quote relevant to this thread is:
Ned: “Look, Homer, all of us pull a few boners now and then, go off half-cocked, make áššëš of ourselves. So, I don’t want to be hard on you, but I just wish you wouldn’t curse in front of my boys.” (Bart the Lover)
It was completely appropriate Craig-y
Can’t you spell my name as is or is that too dámņ far beneath your “dignity”, what little of it you’ve got?
I’ve got plenty of dignity Craig-y. What’s wrong with yours?
Or do you feel the need to censor the playing with of your name?
My 3 yr old cousin Craig likes my calling him “Lil Craigy”. You should feel honored…
If a newspaper editor is concerned that the strip would offend readers–or even found it personallyh offensive–and took it upon himself to alter the final product, I woujld term that “censorship.”
The latter has happened to me more than once and I never considered it censorship. The editor was doing his or her job, which was to maintain the standards of the publication.
If that’s the editor’s intent, then to my mind the editor has the exact same option as a parent who wants to maintain the standards of what he allows his kids to see on television: Change the channel.
The editor of the comic page edits THE PAGE. Meaning he decides what does and does not go on it. And that’s fine. I’ve zero problem with that. He is NOT the editor of THE STRIPS THEMSELVES. The person who holds that position works for the syndicate. That person is charged with maintaining the suitability and quality of the strips. If that person sends a strip out saying, “This is the latest installment of our strip,” then to me what’s implicit in that is: Run it, don’t run it, it’s up to you. But you don’t get to screw with the dialogue, pacing, or jokes. You don’t get to take something funny and make it unfunny, because Lynn Johnston is not an employee of your newspaper. You don’t get to rewrite Lynn Johnston any more than you get to draw your own version of “Doonesbury” and sign Garry Trudeau’s name to it.
We can argue over whether it’s censorship or not, but what it unarguably WAS was out of line, if that’s indeed what happened.
Bladestar…a request from your host: Knock off the Craig-y thing, would you, please?
Baby went whining to Daddy, sure Petey, anything for you
My 3 yr old cousin Craig likes my calling him “Lil Craigy”. You should feel honored…
Honored? For what? Your stupidity?
Baby went whining to Daddy, sure Petey, anything for you
Actually, I didn’t say a dámņ thing to PAD; I didn’t need to, because you already proved you have the mental capacity of a squashed tomato.