February 03, 2004

"FOR BETTER" IS MADE "FOR WORSE"

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

Posted by Peter David at February 3, 2004 11:15 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Howard at February 3, 2004 11:20 AM

You're absolutely right.

Check the link below for the original

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/forbetter/archive/forbetter-20040203.html

Posted by: Jay at February 3, 2004 11:35 AM

It definitely wasn't at the syndicate level -- the Connecticut Post had the correct punchline...

(Hopefully I haven't just started a litany of "me, too"s from different areas of the country.)

Posted by: Mitch at February 3, 2004 11:35 AM

Hiya, PAD.

Y'know, I got sent to the principals office in 6th grade for the slang use of 'sucks.' And it was just as stupid then as it is now. With the amount of truly vulger words and phrases available one would think that we would be praised for use of a four-letter-word (ok, five letters. Just go with it.) as inocuous as 'sucks.'

Sidenote:

I just finnished the latest batch of New Frontier books. It's obious to me that Janos being a genetic experiment is an obvious commentary on the current state of political... Oh, wait. This isn't the Shakespear thread!!

In any case I found them to be eminently enjoyable with the recurring 'laugh out loud' moments that encourage others to glance my way with furrowed brow.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Salutations,

Mitch

Posted by: Pisces at February 3, 2004 11:43 AM

You know, I never got in trouble for saying "sucks"...for me it was always "bites". Remember little Pete from "Pete and Pete" saying "Rules bite!"? That always got me in trouble.

Cheers!

Pisces

Posted by: Peter David at February 3, 2004 11:44 AM

You know, I never got in trouble for saying "sucks"...for me it was always "bites". Remember little Pete from "Pete and Pete" saying "Rules bite!"? That always got me in trouble.

You got in trouble for saying something "bites?" Well, THAT blows.

PAD

Posted by: Mitch at February 3, 2004 11:49 AM

What about telling someone to "Eat it!" I never caught any flak for that one.

Posted by: Den at February 3, 2004 11:59 AM

Back in the 80s, Berke Breathed, satirizing the scab NFL season, had all of the cast of Bloom County replaced with scab characters. Opus was replaced by a little penguin who would shout "Reagan sucks!" Several papers changed the line "Reagan socks!" which makes even less sense than today's FBOFW.

This is why I read my comic strips on line these days, where you can see the uncensored version. Of course, now I have to go and check today's Patriot News to see if Harrisburg is any more sensitive that NYC.

Censorship isn't nothing new in FBOFW. A few years ago, during Michael's wedding, his future mother-in-law objected to having his gay friend Mathew as a groomsmen. For those papers that objected to the use of the word "gay," Lynn Johnson offered up alternative panels in which the mother-in-law complained about the flower arrangement that Mathew (a profession florist) gave as a gift for the wedding.

Posted by: Jeff at February 3, 2004 12:00 PM

Bloom County had the same problem way back when. Which, if I remember correctly, lead to a whole series of strips about local papers editing the comic strips.

If an editor doesn't like, or feels a strip is appropriate, then don't run the strip that day. Seems pretty simple to me.

Posted by: Shemp at February 3, 2004 12:11 PM

Add the Newark (NJ) Star-Ledger to the list of edited versions:

"What you need is an air freshener." "Your music stinks."

Sloppily done with white-out, and a courier-print typewriter.

Posted by: Tempest at February 3, 2004 12:16 PM

First titties are wrong now saying something sucks is wrong, too? What, exactly, is so bad about saying something sucks? Is it supposed to be some veiled reference to blow jobs? Who in the world makes that mental leap *right off the bat*?

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at February 3, 2004 12:25 PM

I had today's NY Daily News sitting on the kitchen table when I read this story, so of course I opened it up right away. I'm happy to say it sucks, so to speak. Should be interesting to see what the newspaper tally is as the day goes on.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 3, 2004 12:26 PM

Blame the morons making an uproar over the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Superbowl Halftime Show incident.

That stirred up the "Public Decency" shitheads...

People use words some people don't like, but they're part of everyday life, SO WHAT? Grow up people, the harder you rail against free speech and expression, the more we're gonna push the envelope and your buttons. YOU WILL NOT WIN censorship-loving a-holes, learn to deal fast...

Posted by: Domini at February 3, 2004 12:28 PM

Most of the time 'sucks' is tame to everyone, but every so often I'll run into a person--always about 40 or older--who seems to remember the slang word did come from reference to blow jobs (or at least I think it did. Maybe I should look it up). *Nobody else knows or cares, though.*

And kids have no clue about that possible interpretation until middle school (that eeevvvil age), and not always then.

Must be a bunch of old farts editing the newspapers.

Posted by: Domini at February 3, 2004 12:29 PM

* Or they think their newspapers are only bought by old people, who may object to the word.

Posted by: Mitch Maltenfort at February 3, 2004 12:43 PM

To venture afield on "sucks" vs. "stinks"...

Some years back, I attended a performance of the play "Arsenic and Old Lace." At the end, where Cary Grant's Mortimer Brewster ran about in the movie yelping "I'm a son of a sea cook!", the actor instead cried "I'm a bastard!"

Now I realize that the change from "bastard" to "son of a sea cook" was censorship. But "son of a sea cook" is simply _funnier_ and I'd cite that as a case where the cleaner language was better.

Seems from this end -- I ain't no writah -- that the pros have to juggle the realism of using the language as real people use it (profanity, cliche and all), and using the language to the best of their ability -- which ought to be better than average, given that they're pro writers.

Getting back to the actual _point_ -- Jeremy is using phrases real kids would use. But is there an equally realistic thing he would say that would be 'clean'?

Posted by: Blue Jackal at February 3, 2004 12:50 PM

Heh heh, this reminds me of that scene in Howard Stern's Private Parts where they do a game show skit to get all the words in that weren't technically supposed to be said on public radio like "cock" for instance.

It also makes me think of Darkwing Duck for some reason... "Suck gas, evil-doers!" Imagine if it was "Stink gas, evil-doers!" Wouldn't that add an entirely different aromatic element to the show... Although I do realise that using the word "sucks" in this manner has a COMPLETELY different and not-exactly-obscene connotation than the punchline in the comic, but... Perhaps I should just stop trying. Ahem. I wonder if he ever used methane...

Okay, shutting up for real.

Posted by: Chuck at February 3, 2004 12:58 PM

What i want to know is what is so bad about the word sucks? All it means is that something is really bad. I don't get why people are all shocked if you say it. Its not like its swear word. My moms least favorite word is sucks she doesn't like what it implies which i have no idea whats she talking about.

My paper did indeed carry the orginal punchline and i see nothing wrong with it aside from the fact its not funny.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 3, 2004 01:21 PM

Welcome to the New Age of Freedom of Speech, where it's not really free if somebody throws a hissy fit (like the head of the FCC).

Posted by: Tom at February 3, 2004 01:34 PM

Here in "The Democrat and Chronicle" in Rochester, NY "Sucks" remains unchanged.

Which is weird since they've been known for not printing a Doonsbury or two.

(The debate on whether or not to run this strip still continues in the Letter to the Editor...)

Posted by: James Lynch at February 3, 2004 01:37 PM

I can't help but think of Milhouse's mom on The Simpsons: "Well, Marge, the other day, Milhouse told me my meatloaf "sucks." He must have gotten that from your little boy, because they certainly don't say that on TV."

I believe people still think the comics pages are only for folks 10 or under, and anything vaguely controversial or adult. Given that many comic strips are written for adults (how many kids understand the deadening corporate world in Dilbert?) and deal with controversy (Doonesbury and For Better or Worse often do), there can be a knee-jerk reaction to clean it up as much as possible. To borrow another Simpsons cry, won't somebody please think of the children?

Blah. Kids can handle it, it *is* censorship (and it made the whole vacuum lead a no sequitir), and it's pathetic for a paper to do. I'd advise anyone who thinks this, well, sucks to email Newsday at letters@newsday.com (be sure to include your name, address, and phone # if there's any chance it'll be printed) and let them know exactly how you feel.

Posted by: SER at February 3, 2004 01:52 PM

James:

Editing the strip isn't censorship. I've been edited (and have edited) all the time. Editors make decisions based on what they find offensive or not offensive. It's part of the job.

The problem with "sucks" is that it technically refers to a sexual act. However, over the years, it's become about as removed from its origin as "jerk."

I would have let it pass for that reason. Although, at the Web site where I work, I don't allow "suck" (I think it's a lazy, uncreative word and I'm paying them to be creative).

This isn't censorship. I'm the editor. I set the standards.

Posted by: Dave Van Domelen at February 3, 2004 02:10 PM

Just don't suck the breast that was shown the other night! You'll rip your lips open from that big ol' piercing.

Posted by: Eegore at February 3, 2004 02:18 PM

Yes, SER, but the issue here goes beyond that word, because of its role as the punchline to the "vacuum cleaner" setup line. I agree that this isn't censorship. I insist, however, that it's sloppy editing, because it damages the narrative. I've been a reporter/editor for nearly 20 years, and "do no harm" is the prime directive of any editor. That wasn't followed here.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 3, 2004 02:34 PM

SER, it is CENSORSHIP PURE AND SIMPLE!

You "edited" a word "YOU" didn't like. That is CENSORSHIP, and it's WRONG and EVIL.

END OF DISCUSSION

Posted by: Michael Pullmann at February 3, 2004 02:48 PM

Chuck: "What i want to know is what is so bad about the word sucks?"

Me: I've always understood it to be shorthand for "sucks [insert slang word for penis]." So it's technically a vulgarity, for people who care about that sort of thing.

As a kid, I quickly learned to edit my expletives for the benefit of any impressionable adults who might be around. And I *still* got heat for "nuts" and "Shatner."

Posted by: Justin Fairfax at February 3, 2004 02:58 PM

Good thing there's not a "Moby Dick" comic strip (the title alone could be censored). The phrase "thar she blows" certainly wouldn't make it.

Posted by: JMW at February 3, 2004 03:00 PM

Bladestar,

You don't know what censorship is, evidently. Papers choosing what and what not to run is not censorship. It's distretion. Now if the local government had come in and told the paper they had to change it, then it would be censorhip.

Nice for you to have passion, but you are wrong. Papers regularly edit out words they do not wish to run, whether it is in an article, a comic, or a synicated collumn. It's not evil for them to do so. It may be a mistake, and misguided, but also their rights. We as readers can let them know (although we can't boycott them, because that's wrong, correct?).

And just out of curiosity, even if it was censorship, how is it EVIL as you say? Because you disagree with it? Mighty presumptious of you.

Grow up.

Posted by: Nat Gertler at February 3, 2004 03:13 PM

If we accept that "sucks" comes from its sexual connotation, then I don't understand it as a pejorative.

I know that back in my free-wheelin' single days, if someone told me that a girl "sucked"... well, that would certainly not dissuade me from asking her out!

Posted by: SER at February 3, 2004 03:14 PM

Eegore: I agree. It was sloppy editing, given that it damaged the narrative (though, I would probably have found it funnier in the "Biff Tannen malapropism" way than the straightforward groaner).

Bladestar: I edit words all the time that I don't like. That's my job.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 3, 2004 03:37 PM

No, it's EVIL because you aren't giving the author the respect of running his/her creation as intended and you are taking away the end reader's RIGHT to see the author's creation.

Just because the Constitution short sightedly didn't forsee

You need to grow up, not me, you corporate A-holes coming to power doesn't mean the founding father intended that the wealthy and powerful be allowed to squelch the free speech of the people.

The Supreme Court f-ed up BIG TIME when it ruled that the First Amendment doesn't apply to newspapers and/or businesses.

And no JMW, it is EVIL for a newspaper, a so-called "Bastion of Free Speech and the press" to Censor ANYTHING. PERIOD

END OF STORY

still belief the crap your masters spew...

Posted by: Jon Casali at February 3, 2004 03:38 PM

Of course if you look at Newsday.com, they have the original strip from the syndicate linked to their page.

Whatta bunch of maroons...

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 3, 2004 03:49 PM

Bladestar. Decaf. Now.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at February 3, 2004 04:02 PM

Sorry, Bladestar -- I've often agreed with you over on other threads, but not this time.

Censorship is when a government moves to suppress something from being said (or published, or disseminated, etc.) A newspaper editing a strip it finds offensive isn't blocking the strip from being published elsewhere with equally wide distribution; thus, it's not censorship.

In this case, it's an amazingly dumb idea and a bad editing choice -- but it's not censorship, and it's not "evil". Misguided and stupid, perhaps. Evil, no.

By your logic, not hiring Editorial Cartoonist X denotes censorship. Sorry, not buying.

TWL

Posted by: Bladestar at February 3, 2004 04:22 PM

Disagree TWL, not hiring them isn't censorship, editing the content of a "contracted" (whatever the proper term is in the print industry) after you've "hired" them IS.

Don't need decaf, too damn many sheep in this country accepting whatever the government and big business (slowly becoming one in the same) tell them meekly and calmly, like drugged mental paitients...

Posted by: David Hunt at February 3, 2004 04:37 PM

Bladestar,

I also disagree with you. The editor is hired by the newspaper to determine the content of what is printed in the same newpaper. His changing of the text in that comic strip is no more censorship than when you chose to write "F-ed up" instead explicitly writing out the vulger word that we all know that stands for. You edited the content of your post. The newspaper edits that content of what they publish. The only difference is that the process of going from original draft to final published version goes through several people instead of just one guy.

However, this is simply a case of the newpaper determine for itself what it wishes to publish. That's editing. It is not censorship which is someone else telling them what they can and can't publish. If they had made some effort to keep someone else from publishing the strip in its original form, then they would be attempting the censorship of Johnston's work. They didn't do that. All other papers are free to publish FBOW as they see fit, and Ms.(?) Johnston could publish it herself if she wished to.

That said, I don't think the editing was needed. Perhaps this wouldn't have happenned if the strip was not scheduled to be published two days after the Super-Bowl.

Posted by: David Hunt at February 3, 2004 04:43 PM

Reading my comment above, I realized that there was another point that I wished to make.

Bladestar, you saying that newspaper must print a certain thing in a certain was closer to censorship than the newpaper determining for itself what is wishes to publish and how. I believe that it's actually worse, as forcing someone to say (or print) something they don't wish to is worse than preventing them from saying (or printing) that they do with to. That's my opinion, in any case.

Posted by: Mary ellen Wofford at February 3, 2004 04:47 PM

Just thought I'd weigh in from what is commonly called The Bible Belt. Here in Jacksonville Florida we got Jeremy saying "sucks."

Times they are a changin'.

Posted by: EClark1849 at February 3, 2004 04:55 PM

So editors should always run their reporters copy "as written"

other wise it's censorship? Then why do we need "editors", which the name in itself tells you what they do?

Personally, I think that Pad's suggestion about having a giant "Suckfest" among comic artist/writers is just the flip side of the Superbowl audience getting miffed at being flashed at halftime.

I don't have a problem with seeing Janet naked, during the Superbowl or otherwise, but on the otherhand, I don't think it was the appropriate time and place.

As for the cartoon, I don't have a problem with editors doing what they consider to be their job, editing.

Posted by: John C. Bunnell at February 3, 2004 04:57 PM

"Sucks" ran in my paper (the Oregonian out of Portland, Oregon).

I concur both that the editing choices made by the "stinks" papers are questionable at best, and that they're not "censorship" in the strict sense of the word (as JMW notes above, true censorship must arise from a government source).

That said, I'm mildly astonished that nobody's yet jumped on the most interesting issue in the whole situation -- namely, whether the various individual newspapers who edited the panel had the right to do so under their syndication contracts.

We know from past history that newspapers can and will sometimes decline to run individual strips of a comic that fall afoul of their editorial standards -- and obviously, when the creator and syndicate offer alternate versions of a strip, as in the "gay groomsman" case, a paper can cnoose whichever version of the strip it prefers.

But here we have individual papers going in and tinkering with a comic strip -- a work submitted in graphic form, not as text. What's more, they're doing it badly; as described, readers can easily tell that they're viewing an altered strip. That's not just inept, it reflects badly on Lynn Johnston's artistic skills.

I foresee some interesting discussions between the lawyers for the distribution syndicate and the lawyers of the "stinks" newspapers over the next week or so....

Posted by: David Hunt at February 3, 2004 05:06 PM

It did occur to me to wonder if the newspapers in question had the legal right to alter the strip under the contact they had with Lynn Johnston or United Media or whoever. Since I don't know the relevant copyright law and am not privy to the content of the contracts, I reframed from commenting and simply assumed that they either had the right to alter the strip instead of simply not running it...or they'd be in danger of ending up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. Time will tell.

Posted by: Steve at February 3, 2004 05:33 PM

Interestingly enough, on the papers website, the line is unchanged...

Posted by: Bladestar at February 3, 2004 05:52 PM

David Hunt:

The newspaper protects itself with the standard, wishy-washy corporate "The views expressed by the writer are not those of "

EClark:

Editors can still look for typos and grammatical errors, plus look out for libel, but absolutely NO changes should be made without the consent of the writer.

Better fix for all this would be to limit teh FCC to enforcing the old guidelines that should be brought back AND beefed up, namely,:

No Person/Company/Corporate Entity (and or it's sub-entities) should be permitted to own more than One Newspaper, Television Station, OR (not and) Radio Station in a given market.

That would be a great start. The government (like say, the FCC, an UNELECTED group) should have no say what-so-ever regarding content.

If FOX wants to air "When Consenting Adults do it doggie style!" in Prime Time, more power to 'em.

With REAL competition in place, the marketplace will truly be able to sort out what it finds acceptable and unacceptable.

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.

I merely advocate freedom, while you advocate coroprate censorship and controlling what others see/hear.

I'll take freedom over "benign dictatorship" anyday...

Posted by: Jim "Spooon" Henry at February 3, 2004 06:12 PM

Comments:

a) my local paper carried the "sucks" version.

b) while "sucks" is really quite a tame word these days, certain other words -- completely benign in most cases -- can really get people's panties in a bunch. For instance, if you say something "Bucking Flows" people really tend to turn their heads. I wonder if that would get edited?

(They don't call me "Spooon" for only just becasue I like "The Tick" :) )

c) There is a fine line between editing and censorship. Substance versus content and the like. Editing is tpyically done to improve a piece without altering content or intent. Censorship is a deliberate attempt to castrate or defang something to make it less objectionable or to make some thing fit within someone own personal view of what is acceptable. Changing the word "sucks" to stinks is certainly censorship to a degree. That doesn't necessarily make it a wrong decision. (or a right one) In some cases apparently, the spirit of teh joke was maintained by altering the preceding line as well. But I tend to agree that no change shoudl have beenmade without the artists consent. By I also agree that the paper has every right to not publish a strip that it feels is not suitable for its audience. The first ammendment only says the *governmetn* can establish no law about free speech. Private groups like the newspaper can make their own "laws" (as it were) as to how they will operate

Jim "Spooon" Henry

Posted by: Pete at February 3, 2004 06:13 PM

Somebody brought it up before, but what do you expect? We live in a country where people are losing their damn minds because they saw a nipple. (Bet none of the Canadian papers made that edit...)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 3, 2004 06:19 PM

So the first thing I would do under the reign of Emperor Bladestar would be to try to run a clandestine radio station AND an underground newspaper...and listen, always listen, for the sound of the steel toed jackboots at the door.

Sounds sort of fun, actually.

There's a great deal more opportunity to enjoy a wide variety of opinions and views than there was during the good old days of tight FCC control.

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at February 3, 2004 06:56 PM

I think I've got to check in on the censorship side of this one. While I agree that editors have a right, even a responsibility to make certain alterations, when you soften a punch line by changing a word that actually destroys the punch line itself, that's going a bit too far. I remember writing a movie review some years ago, only to discover to my horror when it saw print that the editor had actually inserted one word which completely changed the entire slant of the review from positive to negative. Was the editor within his right to add that word? Probably. Was it ethical? Probably not. Needless to say, I haven't written for that magazine again.

Posted by: joelfinkle at February 3, 2004 07:41 PM

Well, it sucks in Chicago.

Um, maybe I should clarify: The Chicago Tribune ran the dialog as written, with the word "sucks" included.

On the other hand, we still haven't seen the friendly side of freezing in what seems like weeks.

On the gripping hand (sorry, that book sucked too), if "sucked" refers to oral sex... why would it be used to describe a bad thing?

Posted by: Lee Houston, Junior at February 3, 2004 08:43 PM

Today's Houston Chronicle ran the original.

Which is surprising, considering how much in the past they have censored--, I mean edited comic strips to the point that they even ran an article about it back in January when they had to censor--, I mean edit that day's B.C. by Johnny Hart.

Maybe the syndicates could start providing an alternate strip for the day/week in question like Walt Kelly did with his bunny rabbits during the heyday of Pogo.

Posted by: Lee Houston, Junior at February 3, 2004 08:49 PM

And before anybody asks, it got to the point during the height of Kelly's run on Pogo, that so many people were objecting about things that Kelly started providing his syndicate with alternate weeks worth of strips featuring a group of bunny rabbits just standing around telling jokes.

Remember: "We have met the enemy, and they is us."

Posted by: Joseph J. Finn at February 3, 2004 08:53 PM

My opinion? When it's reporting, it's editing for clarity and truth. When it's art, it's censorship to change it without the collusion of the artist - sadly, I can't find anything on FBOFW.comM to indicate exacly what happened, so I'm reserving judgement on the editors involved.

Joseph

Posted by: Mark L at February 3, 2004 10:02 PM

Like Janet Jackson, it was just a writer's ploy to get attention/ratings :)

Posted by: Wil at February 3, 2004 10:04 PM

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 'Jerk off' - masturbate. Yet here in the UK there's the expression 'Not giving a toss' or calling someone a 'tosser'. Both of which refer to masturbation 'tossing yourself off' is to masturbate. 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.

Posted by: Janice at February 3, 2004 10:27 PM

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 pissed enough to do just that, but going cold-turkey on SG-1 would REALLY ----.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 3, 2004 11:06 PM

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 bitching 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.

Posted by: EClark1849 at February 3, 2004 11:30 PM

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".

Posted by: Janice at February 3, 2004 11:35 PM

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.

Posted by: Kenn at February 3, 2004 11:40 PM

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.

Posted by: James Lynch at February 4, 2004 12:00 AM

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!

Posted by: Jim Lynch at February 4, 2004 12:03 AM

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?

Posted by: Den at February 4, 2004 12:38 AM

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 fucked 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."

Posted by: John C. Bunnell at February 4, 2004 12:44 AM

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.

Posted by: Donner at February 4, 2004 01:25 AM

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!

Posted by: Bob J. at February 4, 2004 01:28 AM

Wow, "sucks" gets banned in NYC, but in backwater Spokane we get the unrated, director's cut version.

Go figure.

Posted by: Nacho F. at February 4, 2004 01:39 AM

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."

Posted by: nekouken at February 4, 2004 01:40 AM

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 "bitch," my parents knew she was saying "bitch," and I, in my formative years, knew she was saying "bitch," but instead of just hearing it and moving on, this one instance of the use of the word "bitch" 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 "bitch" 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 bitch, 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.

Posted by: Derek at February 4, 2004 06:01 AM

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.

Posted by: Derek at February 4, 2004 06:02 AM

Oops, there should be an "and" after Wally. :)

Posted by: Peter David at February 4, 2004 08:09 AM

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

Posted by: Bladestar at February 4, 2004 08:15 AM

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.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 4, 2004 09:17 AM

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 porn shop down the street, you have a damn 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.

Posted by: The StarWolf at February 4, 2004 09:37 AM

Someone queried about Canadian newspapers. Ottawa's major daily, THE OTTAWA [second-class] CITIZEN carried the strip unchanged.

Posted by: Menshevik at February 4, 2004 10:19 AM

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).

Posted by: Bladestar at February 4, 2004 10:23 AM

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...

Posted by: SER at February 4, 2004 10:50 AM

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.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 4, 2004 11:13 AM

Does Boondocks keep an up-to-date site on the web?

Posted by: James at February 4, 2004 11:18 AM

Yep. I read it pretty much daily.

http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/

Good stuff.

Posted by: Julio Diaz at February 4, 2004 11:32 AM

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...

Posted by: Nat Gertler at February 4, 2004 11:42 AM

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.

Posted by: Doug Hancock at February 4, 2004 11:44 AM

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."

Posted by: Discord at February 4, 2004 11:51 AM

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.

Posted by: Joe Goforth at February 4, 2004 11:53 AM

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)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 4, 2004 11:57 AM

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.

Posted by: Den at February 4, 2004 12:26 PM

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.

Posted by: John C. Bunnell at February 4, 2004 12:56 PM

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....

Posted by: joelfinkle at February 4, 2004 01:11 PM

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."

Posted by: John C. Bunnell at February 4, 2004 01:11 PM

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.

Posted by: Menshevik at February 4, 2004 01:41 PM

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.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 4, 2004 03:08 PM

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.

Posted by: nekouken at February 4, 2004 03:17 PM

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.

Posted by: Menshevik at February 4, 2004 03:56 PM

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?)

Posted by: John C. Bunnell at February 4, 2004 04:28 PM

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.

Posted by: Menshevik at February 4, 2004 05:10 PM

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.

Posted by: Menshevik at February 4, 2004 06:11 PM

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.

Posted by: Menshevik at February 4, 2004 06:28 PM

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 asses 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)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 4, 2004 07:26 PM

It was completely appropriate Craig-y

Can't you spell my name as is or is that too damn far beneath your "dignity", what little of it you've got?

Posted by: Bladestar at February 4, 2004 09:58 PM

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...

Posted by: Peter David at February 5, 2004 05:46 AM

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.

Posted by: Peter David at February 5, 2004 05:52 AM

Bladestar...a request from your host: Knock off the Craig-y thing, would you, please?

Posted by: Bladestar at February 5, 2004 07:45 AM

Baby went whining to Daddy, sure Petey, anything for you

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 5, 2004 08:27 AM

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 damn thing to PAD; I didn't need to, because you already proved you have the mental capacity of a squashed tomato.

Posted by: EClark1849 at February 5, 2004 09:41 AM

**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."**

Not surprisingly, I disagree, Peter. Both acts are "censorship", just different extremes. On the other hand, while we do agree about the editor making SUSTANTIVE changes being wrong, we seem to disagree on what the term "substantive" means. Let's suppose for example that the opposite had happened and Lynn had written "sOcks" instead of "sUcks". My guess is that if you had heard about the change, you wouldn't be making such a "sTINk"over the matter, and would probably be arguing that the editor was doing his job, even though basically he would be doing virtually the same thing, changing the spelling, and ultimately the interpretation of the joke.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 5, 2004 09:45 AM

See what I get for trying to be nice, Peter?

F you Craigy. F you

Posted by: Bladestar at February 5, 2004 09:47 AM

By the way Pete, good job. I use nicknames and you jump on me, he hurls insults and you let him get away with it...Godd job, setting a great example for your kids

Posted by: nekouken at February 5, 2004 11:28 AM

Bladestar: See what I get for trying to be nice, Peter?

I have to ask, as an observer: At what point, and in what way exactly, were you "trying to be nice?" Was it when you continued using a nickname Craig made it clear he didn't want you to? Or was it the part where you found another way to antagonize him after the host politely asked you knock that crap off?

You've been pretty extreme in your arguments in this thread, Bladestar, but that's not a big deal until you decide to pick a fight with another poster, man. That ain't cool.

Anyway, back to this:

PAD: 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.

I see what you're saying, and even agree with it, but I have some devil's advocate: can it be looked at as an editor buying the rights to present all those strips in his paper (I believe the paper pays the syndicate; please correct me if I'm wrong, anyone who knows) in the paper's own idiom? I mentioned the "opinions presented here" disclaimer above, and I think it relates. The syndicate never gets complaints for offensive strips from readers, the paper gets those. Since the paper is the one that has to deal with the repercussions of presenting the work, couldn't it be viewed as their prerogative to ensure that the presentation doesn't damage their reputation or harm their business?

Consider it to be the lowest-common-denominator. The paper's interest is in presenting material which offends the fewest readers possible. Assuming that everyone is offended by the same things (say, profanity) in different degrees, it's in the paper's best interest to use the tamest language possible at every opportunity. This attitude, of course, ignores the fact that some people are more offended by censorship than profanity, which I have honestly never seen as well exemplified as I have on this blog entry.

Of course, I'm not offended by censorship as much as the stupidity displayed by it. My aforementioned Kelly LeBrock example, E! Entertainment Television (why do they make shows that are little more than excuses to show tits only to blur the tits? They don't have to do it; I called the FCC and asked. Their sponsors are unlikely to be offended, since the commercials aired during Wild On... and Howard Stern consist predominantly of Girls Gone Wild videos and other sexy products. There's absolutely no reason for it), and of course this comic strip crap: all of these show no actual thought put into the decision to censor or the manner in which it's approached.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 5, 2004 11:51 AM

Hey, HE was the one tossing insults, I merely gave him a nickname, there's nothing unconstitutional about it. But then again, you are in favor of censorship when it suits you

Posted by: Doug Atkinson at February 5, 2004 12:17 PM

Nekouken's point raises an interesting question. "FBOFW" is translated into five languages besides English. I'm sure Johnston doesn't do the translation herself; it's probably done by someone at the syndicate.

Now, this definitely requires re-lettering the word balloons. And translation is always a matter of compromises; the translator can try to get as close as possible to the original, but "exact translation" is a myth. This is especially the case with wordplay.

The key point of the punchline is a colloquial insult which plays off a setup in the penultimate panel, and uses a term that might be considered offensive by some. The question is: If the translator chooses not to use a potentially offensive term in the target language, would that be considered censorship? Or does the need to retain the joke outweigh the need to retain the potential offense? If the translator has the choice between two equally workable idioms, one potentially offensive and one not, are they obliged to keep the potentially offensive version?

(Mind you, I think this is all academic anyway--the reader should choose how they feel based on the facts of the individual case, rather than having to figure out whether or not it's censorship before deciding how to feel about it. If a newspaper chose to correct Johnston's Canadian spelling and did it clumsily, that probably wouldn't be considered censorship; would that make it less annoying? Ultimately, the only test that might matter lies in the syndicate's contract with the newspaper; everything else is just personal opinion.)

Posted by: Bladestar at February 5, 2004 12:50 PM

Ok Doug, you've made we real curious...

Who here has seen one of the foreign editions of that edition of the strip and what did it translate to?

Posted by: nekouken at February 5, 2004 02:26 PM

Bladestar: Hey, HE was the one tossing insults, I merely gave him a nickname, there's nothing unconstitutional about it. But then again, you are in favor of censorship when it suits you

I never tried to censor you, nor do I care about who started the namecalling or anything petty like that. It's something petty in an entirely different manner: you claimed you were "trying to be nice," and from what I could see, you weren't. You could be the innocent victim of Craig's malicious attempts to impugn your stellar character, you could be Dr. Doom. In either case, judging by the posts you made after Peter asked you stop with the nicknames, you were not, in either of those posts, "trying to be nice."

And I'm in favor of self-censorship (not an oxymoron -- as I pointed out, censorship is not exclusively authority-driven nor is it implicitly evil), and I criticize the internal censorship of a privately-owned business's publication (such as a newspaper) as absurd where applicable; there's nothing wrong with it if it's done with a modicum of intelligence attatched (which the primary example given, FBOFW, was not).

Posted by: Peter David at February 6, 2004 12:34 AM

Baby went whining to Daddy, sure Petey, anything for you

Uh, no. No, Craig said nothing to me. See, what I'd like to see is a certain level of intelligence and style in the discourse here. I'm not exactly expecting the Algonquin roundtable, but something more intelligent than that level of needless condescension is preferable. And if you think your comment above qualifies as "trying to be nice," then you are seriously deranged.

Which is a long way of saying what I say previously in a more succinct fashion: Do me a favor and knock it the hell off.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at February 6, 2004 12:39 AM

I see what you're saying, and even agree with it, but I have some devil's advocate: can it be looked at as an editor buying the rights to present all those strips in his paper (I believe the paper pays the syndicate; please correct me if I'm wrong, anyone who knows) in the paper's own idiom?

I'm thinking not. Idiom or no, I think the newspaper's obliged to present the comic strip in the way that the artist wants it presented. To me it's no different than a bookstore stocking a particular novel and tearing out a couple of pages featuring a sex scene because they're worried it will upset customers. Stock it, don't stock it, whatever. But don't mutilate it.

PAD

Posted by: John C. Bunnell at February 6, 2004 02:46 AM

I think the newspaper's obliged to present the comic strip in the way that the artist wants it presented. To me it's no different than a bookstore stocking a particular novel and tearing out a couple of pages featuring a sex scene because they're worried it will upset customers. Stock it, don't stock it, whatever. But don't mutilate it. [PAD]

I absolutely agree.

OTOH, don't I recall that there's precedent for retailer mutilation across the tracks in the retail video-rental market? If memory serves, at one point Blockbuster Video was said to be doing some selective editing on certain of the movies it stocked in the interests of keeping excessively graphic material out of the hands of our impressionable youth.

And then after that brouhaha died down, there was a third-party vendor -- with a right-wing religious affiliation, as I recall -- doing much the same thing on a larger and more forthright scale (to the extent of inserting audibly over-dubbed dialogue in place of sufficiently dirty words, in almost exact parallel to what the local editors did to Lynn Johnston's comic strip). Fortunately, I think the studios sued that company into oblivion....

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 6, 2004 09:06 AM

If memory serves, at one point Blockbuster Video was said to be doing some selective editing on certain of the movies it stocked in the interests of keeping excessively graphic material out of the hands of our impressionable youth.

It isn't Blockbuster's job to edit content "on behalf" of our children.

That's what parents and guidelines like movie ratings are for.

Blockbuster's job, "on behalf" of our childre, is to not let children rent said movies to begin with, not edit them and THEN let children get their hands on them.

The sad part about movie editing is that it's mostly context. You hear something that's poorly dubbed, or even dubbed well, and you just know by context what it was supposed to be anyways, even if you haven't seen the movie/tv show before.

And kids are just as smart at figuring this out.

I mean, take South Park... I think it's even *funnier* by having all the bleeps and stuff and having Kenny's voice be muffled since most of what he says is obscene anyways.

My brother once, when he was like 12 or something, came home with Baseketball (which was from the creators of South Park). The video store let him rent it in my name.

I'm like, what the hell?

It turns out it was the manager of the store... that let a 12 year old... rent a near NC-17 movie.

Posted by: nekouken at February 6, 2004 11:21 AM

PAD: To me it's no different than a bookstore stocking a particular novel and tearing out a couple of pages featuring a sex scene because they're worried it will upset customers.

Does this also apply to movies on television? I've already stated my own issues with this practice, but when a network bleeps or dubs a similar-sounding word from elsewhere in the film to cover one of the Seven Dirties or snips a bit of film for content, is this also tantamount to whiting out the punchline, or is there a mitigating circumstance? Or does it, perhaps, fall under the alternative ethics I posed for the comics page?

Keep in mind, the FCC only regulates network television between 6 AM and 10 PM and doesn't regulate cable at all (save for "obscenity"), meaning that swearing and nudity are legal for broadcast outside those parameters.

Craig: I mean, take South Park... I think it's even *funnier* by having all the bleeps and stuff and having Kenny's voice be muffled since most of what he says is obscene anyways.

A related thing: Back when Adam Sandler came out with his first album, I heard the track, "Ode To My Car" on the Dr. Demento Show. I thought it was hilarious. Then I heard it on the album, and it wasn't nearly as funny. Seems Sandler had a radio edit, with all the cursing covered up by car horn sounds. That song was ten times funnier when censored for content.

Another related note: The movie Crazy People with Dudley Moore and Daryl Hannah actually filmed a television-friendly version. I'm not sure about the swearing -- I seem to think they filmed scenes with language twice, once with and once without, but I'm not positive about that -- but there were two advertisements created by Dudley Moore that actually had TV-friendly copies made. A Jaguar ad that went, "For men who want handjobs from women they don't know" aired as "... who want special attention... Ad copy from a horror movie was changed from "This movie will fuck you up for life" to "... mess you up..." (The ad-man's boss when the ad saw print: "How the fuck did the fucking word "fuck" get printed in the New York fucking Times?") Those are really only funny if you'd seen the theatrical release version, though. If you haven't seen it, you should.

Posted by: Doug Atkinson at February 6, 2004 01:02 PM

"Four Weddings and a Funeral" also filmed scenes in theatrical and television versions (it was co-produced by BBC 4). In the script book, they comment that this had the ironic effect of creating more profanity in the world--"when the director was told after filming a difficult scene that he had to film it again for the TV version, his response was definitely not 'oh bugger.'" (Paraphrasing from memory.)

Posted by: Luigi Novi at February 6, 2004 04:23 PM

First of all, the word "censorship" does not, by definition, specify the government. It merely means keeping people from seeing or hearing something.

For an editor to change a cartoonist's work may be an editorial decision, but it is an unauthorized compromise of the artist's work, and it is obviously censorship as well, as that person is trying to keep that artist

Bladestar, I agree with you that it's censorship, and that it is inherently evil. I too, find the "community standards" laws a bit dubious. However, your behavior towards others here has been obnoxious.

You claim that Craig was tossing insults toward you. That’s a lie. He never insulted you in the first post in which he addressed you . He merely criticized your behavior towards Janice, saying that it was not appropriate.

You claim that he ran to Peter to whine about this, which is another lie. What Craig actually did was address the problem to you, and he did so without imitating your behavior. What Peter said to you he said of his own accord. You also spoke condescendingly toward Janice regarding her “ignoring” you, even though she actually responded to your post.

I think you can express yourself far better than that.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 6, 2004 08:33 PM

I don't see where I said Janice was ignoring me, and frankly I don't care. The double standard around here is getting pathetic however.

He's hurling inults over in today's thread, read more than just one set of posts. I'm guessing the Craig here in this set of posts is the same over in the "whiny kids cry to PAD" thread of today...

Posted by: Udog at February 6, 2004 09:34 PM

DOuble standard is SOP on this site.

PAD and his cult can insult anyone and it's fine.

Disagree adn throw the same insults back adn suddenly PAD and others convert a BLOG post on the web into PAD's living room and he should shut the door.

Fine - you can shut it - but just know that you are being a coward that doesn't respond and is only comfortable with one real voice.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 6, 2004 11:19 PM

I'm guessing the Craig here in this set of posts is the same over in the "whiny kids cry to PAD" thread of today...

Well, unlike you, I have nothing to hide by simply admitting I'm the same person that reads and posts under the same name for multiple threads.

Get over yourself already. The only whiner around here is you.

Posted by: Elf with a gun at February 8, 2004 04:22 AM

It might be a little late to post to this thread (so I got here late this week, so sue me) but all of this talk of changing words from the original to something less 'offensive' reminds me of something that occured during a community play that I was involved with (as a musician) some years ago. That summer they were putting on the play 'Oliver'. As those who are familar with the play (and/or the book it was based on) know there is a line in there about how '. . . the Law is an ass!" When they were rehearsing the scene where the line was supposed to be uttered I noticed that they had the actor not say the line at all. When I asked one of the folks running the show about it she said that they felt that the line was "inappropriate" for their community standards and they didn't want their kids to hear such language for fear they'd think their elders endorsed the usage of that word (or words to that effect; I don't recall what her exact phrasing was). Which I found rather ironic, since there was a scene earlier in the play (where Oliver first meets up with the Artful Dodger and Fagin and their gang) where one of the gang boys makes some smartass comment to Fagin and he responds with "Ah, go drink your gin!"

Chris

Posted by: John at February 9, 2004 03:30 PM

Censorship is censorship regardless of who does it.

Otherwise, how would one define the phrase "Self-Censorship"

If censorship required government action, then self-censorship could only occur if you were the government. That would make no sense.

Where the government figures in is whether or not it is constitutional in the United States.

The goverment is prohibited from censoring items by the First Ammendment. No other entity, including newspapers, face this restriction.

But when they do it, it's still censorship.

Editorial Decisions and Censorship are synonyms. (Except for the positive and negative connotations.)

Editorial Censorship can be ok, or it can be stupid. Depending upon the circumstances. I'd say in this case, it was stupid.

Government Censorship is un-American. (Kinda like Ashcroft making sure nude statues are covered when he speaks....though I am sure there are people who wouldn't call that censorship.)

Posted by: joan at August 27, 2005 07:47 AM

1hi
i am a grandmother who loved Zits, as i have teenagers and it hit home, the talk the way parents acted, very real and can laugh at ourselves, especially shopping with mom, messy room, the way teens think, hope we can have it back in paper soon. I need the laughs, ty