A call to arms in the battle for a voice.
Mar. 3rd, 2004 11:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
richardf8First things first. The New York Times On The Web has dropped Ted Rall from its line up of political cartoons. Primarily because they were tired of dealing with flack from dittoheads, but I've also noticed a bit of a shift to the right in their editorial policy generally. It was apparent in the debate I excoriated in a previous post, Lisa Bumiller being one of theirs. It is apparent with the addition of David Brooks to the line up of commentators, and it is apparent with the move striking Rall (whose work they were able to present for free; they paid him nothing) from the lineup of cartoons on their web edition.
This is disturbing to me because Rall's voice is a voice from the left, from the far left, that has been one of the strongest voices of dissent under this administration. And I cannot help but think that that may be one of the reasons he is being struck. He says unpleasant things that a lot of Americans don't want to hear but need to. He asks us to entertain the possibility of the unthinkable, so that the fact that an action is unthinkable does not become a cloak behind which the person who takes that action can hide. His art sucks, but it's no less pleasant to look at than McCoy's, and he knows his art sucks. He also gave me a much needed belly laugh after the extended episode of hate speech that was the State of the Union address.
For that reason encourage you, all of you, yes, even the conservatives, libertarians, and libertines among you, to appeal to the New York Times to keep his feed on their website. Not because you agree with him, but because the moment we start silencing certain views while privileging others, democracy, which depends upon an informed electorate becomes a sham.
You can e-mail the New York Times ombudsman at public@nytimes.com
This is disturbing to me because Rall's voice is a voice from the left, from the far left, that has been one of the strongest voices of dissent under this administration. And I cannot help but think that that may be one of the reasons he is being struck. He says unpleasant things that a lot of Americans don't want to hear but need to. He asks us to entertain the possibility of the unthinkable, so that the fact that an action is unthinkable does not become a cloak behind which the person who takes that action can hide. His art sucks, but it's no less pleasant to look at than McCoy's, and he knows his art sucks. He also gave me a much needed belly laugh after the extended episode of hate speech that was the State of the Union address.
For that reason encourage you, all of you, yes, even the conservatives, libertarians, and libertines among you, to appeal to the New York Times to keep his feed on their website. Not because you agree with him, but because the moment we start silencing certain views while privileging others, democracy, which depends upon an informed electorate becomes a sham.
You can e-mail the New York Times ombudsman at public@nytimes.com
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
So, Rall is good for an exchange of ideas...
Date: 2004-03-04 12:43 pm (UTC)http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=chait030804
Re: So, Rall is good for an exchange of ideas...
Date: 2004-03-04 12:55 pm (UTC)But Rall, knowing that large swaths of the progressive agenda are at stake, as the conservative agenda seeks to return us to "separate but equal" education, back alley abortions and turn of the century sweatshops, would not run, and has condemned Nader for doing so.
If Nader wants to raise awareness about his issues, let him write, and cartoon, and buy PSA's or whatever. But dividing the opposition vote does nothing to save the environment or protect the consumer or any of those other things Nader says he's about, and everything to undermine them.