????
"The paper is instituting new procedures so some editor, somewhere, will see things like that offensive article and artwork before it goes to print."

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense at all. I'm a stringer for our local newspaper, and EVERYTHING that goes into the paper is 'seen' by an editor. Not only seen, but carefully reviewed and--oh my--EDITED. The editor also divides up the available space, so everything fits (at least at 'my' paper). Reporters and columnists don't just get to insert stuff willy nilly into the paper at their own volition.

I'd be willing to bet that an editor saw the article you found offensive and approved it's inclusion. You did the right thing by letting them know how upset you were by it, and hopefully, they will take that into consideration in future, but they already have a procedure where an editor sees what's printed ahead of time. That comment is just a little lip service to make the public feel something new is being done.

OMG I went and found the piece in question expecting something political. Don't people today understand satire?

The piece was musing on the "coincidence" of the new Twilight movie opening on the 4th of July.

It was written tongue in cheek eeerrrrr rather fang over lip. LOL

It's not even political. It's SATIRE.

People claiming to have so much respect for the founding fathers that they would complain to the press over the press exercising their first amendment rights. Make perfect sense to me. (that's sarcasm) Our forefathers would be rolling in their graves. They would also be defending the rights of the press to depict them as vampires in a silly article coinciding with the opening of a movie.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Article That Caused the

Oh my gosh, that is so funny. Of course, for centuries people have failed to recognize satire, e.g., Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal."

Here is a link that might be useful: A Modest Proposal

Satire yes, but it is often in poor taste. The newspapers response tells me they realized their readership felt it was. Though I'm with azzalea, the editors knew about it before all the emails arrived. They're response also tells me they think their readership is dumb enough to believe it was an "oops". I'd call them on that one too.

Mr. Sanchez is bowing down to those who don't "get it" who wrote in. What of the readership that does understand satire and freedom of the press?

"And I have delivered a clear message to all staff members that judgment must be framed within the context of reader sensibility -- not staff sensibilities."

Does this mean the news also will have to be censured in order to appease the readership's fragile sensibilities?

We're already rewriting books and history. I guess it's just fine and dandy to to edit the newspaper for the lowest common denominator also. They dumbed down the language to the 3rd grade level years ago. No wonder the papers are floundering to stay in business.

Apparently for him it is about appeasement. A sorry excuse for one in charge of a newspaper. But then sense critical thinking skills are becoming rarer today than why should I be surprised. Feelings...la la la feelings....

Here is a link that might be useful: The Apologist

I wish people would keep threads together so you don't have to search and go back and forth between multiple threads to get more of the story. I sometimes wonder if it's laziness or intentional to try to hide something. I believe I mentioned that without seeing it,it would be difficult to say whether it's a problem or not. Thanks for the link Wildchild. And after seeing it, I have to say, it's been a while since I saw an "entertainment editor" publish something entertaining, which this certainly is, IMO!

I think you were erroneous when you said, among other things, "...ran a full page blah-blah about the vampire movie series, and suggested that the founding fathers were vampires..."
The editor clearly did not say they were, nor did he suggest it. You misquoted him and put words in his mouth that weren't said. What he said was "what if" "could that mean" and other clear statements.

This was clearly not some attack article against the founding fathers as you suggested. It wasn't a slam or otherwise. Nowhere near it and after getting more of the facts, you were offbase with your charges. Be offended by anything, that's fine, your right, excuse me, privilege and I respect that. I respect a disagreement but I don't respect misquoting and exaggerating. To me, that is wrong. And frankly I'm way more troubled now than before that the item causing the kafullfle wasn't referenced. I think that would have been important.

And now, after reading it again, I am even more confused now as to how someone could be offended by this. It doesn't make sense to me. Isn't there far more to find somewhere from which to take offense?

I'm sending an email of support to the paper. Anyone else?

Here is a link that might be useful: Original post

I'm not sending an email because I think they are a lame paper.. the editor should be fired, not for the original pics, but for giving such a lame apology... sincerely... I don't appreciate "professionals" who kowtow to their audiences. You can not please everyone. This is a newspaper, not the Miss Congeniality Contest.

The cartoon was fine, not really funny IMHO, but fine. A simple... Sorry if we offended anyone but it was meant as satire would have sufficed...

Obviously, it would help if that newspaper knew their subscribers though. I take it they don't have the same readers as The New Yorker... (And, seriously, don't click the link if you are offended by political satire)

Here is a link that might be useful: New Yorker Satire Covers

I agree with you Carla. Why support such a poorly run paper?

Regarding my last post...... I edited poorly also. I meant to type since not sense. I had common sense or the lack thereof on my mind. ;0)

At least they didn't propose that the miscreant editor should be shot, or equally effectively dispatched, for having offered such offensive cartoons.

But then ... they only had sharpened teeth, not a missile in their headband, didn't they?

ole joyful

Marlingardner I didn't see any reason that article should have been published. It was in VERY poor taste. As a general rule satire in a public presentation is not acceptable. This article was the perfect reason why! I appreciated Mr. Sanchez having guts enough to state the obvious....it should not have been published. I also called and thanked him for his consideration! The next time I visit with him, I will tell him that he has a Marlin supporter too.