'Mallard' makes a mess -- again

Periodically, the content of the “Mallard Fillmore” strip on the comics pages sparks a run of letters from readers asking why “Mallard” is on the comics pages and “Doonesbury” on the Other Opinion page.

“Mallard” arrived at The N&O when our features department was revamping the comics pages, and the initial decision to add the strip to The N&O was made there. Later, when the department again was tweaking the comics, readers were allowed to vote on their favorites, and “Mallard” showed enough of a loyal following to warrant inclusion.

When readers began complaining about the strip, specifically that “Mallard” was in the comics while “Doonesbury” was on the op-ed page, The N&O’s former public editor Ted Vaden wrote two columns about it. In the first in January 2008, Vaden came down on the side of keeping the arrangement, saying, “The main argument for putting the two strips under the same roof is that treating two political strips separately is inconsistent. This is the place to trot out the old Emerson aphorism: ‘A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.’ There are in comics several other strips with political commentary — ‘Candorville,’ for just one example.”

In an August 2008 column, once the election campaign was in full swing, Vaden decided The N&O should “pluck the duck,” saying  “[Bruce] Tinsley’s cartoon has morphed from political satire to political propaganda, and the prospect is that it will get more partisan as the presidential campaign intensifies.”

In an October 2008 column, after readers voted on the comics, Executive Editor John Drescher took up the issue again, saying: “While some of you have viewed this as one of the great journalistic issues of our era, I don’t see it that way. I think each strip should run in The N&O, and it doesn’t matter that much that they run in different places.

“ ‘Mallard’ has earned its place in The N&O. Tinsley enjoys tweaking liberals and the media (he would say they are one and the same). That’s OK by me.

“When it comes to working in the public arena, he and I share the same philosophy. He doesn’t want to have a nice, quiet comic strip. And I don't want to have a nice, quiet newspaper. The more voices, the better. Let the duck quack and quack and quack.”

Click read more to read recent letters on the subject.
----------------------------

It is ludicrous that “Doonesbury” runs on the op-ed page while “Mallard Fillmore,” with its diatribes against Democrats and the Obama administration, appears on the comics page. This is inconsistent and unfair; both strips are political commentary. You should display both either on the op-ed page or on the comics page.

I realize this is a tough call (and one that you would probably rather avoid) because of space limitations, but it is necessary in order to uphold your commitment to fairness.

Joe Wheelan
Cary

------------------

So, the writer of the Aug. 21 letter “No joke” was distraught over The N&O’s publishing of “Mallard Fillmore.” For starters, it is called freedom of the press. And second, the comic strip merely points out the absurd by being absurd. The comic also footnotes all facts as well.

I wish to know exactly which lies and untruths the writer is talking about. Does he know for a fact that this cartoon has inspired fear, shouting and hate-mongering among those opposed to nationalized health care? I thought all these protesters were merely exercising their First Amendment rights.

I’m sure the writer has been equally appalled by the extreme violence committed by left-wing extremist organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front. No doubt he wrote letters condemning the actions of ELF, the Environmental Liberation Front, whose violent acts in the forest have killed and maimed loggers, members of America’s working families.

As for political cartoons, I am also certain he expressed tremendous outrage over the despicable cartoons that denigrated the Office of the President, and the Bush family, over the past eight years.

Anthony Boerio
Wilson

---------------------------------------------------------

As someone who grew up in the deep South during the 1950s, I've seen firsthand the style and substance of racial hatred that proliferated during that time and continues to thrive in many quarters today. There’s nothing even remotely subtle about it.

To many of us, “Mallard Fillmore’s” depiction of a grinning African-American man holding up a photo of what is clearly an elderly white woman is flashback to those times — it is, without a doubt, a purely racist image, and it is clearly not of an unintended nature. The purulence of the racism is compounded by the words coming from Obama’s mouth, which translates to “When my health-care bill is passed, old white people will to be the first to be pushed aside and put to death.”  Look again at the depiction of glee with which Obama delivers his line. (Put in your mind an image of a young Emmet Till, whistling at a white woman, and what happened to him for daring to break the strict “code of ethics” that white folks held over the black community).  

I know that probably most will say, “He doth protest too much” or “there goes another liberal seeing ‘racism’ everywhere he looks.” However, it’s extremely sad to me that political correctness has come so far that we tend now to bend over backward to accommodate what in the not-too distant past was considered intolerable racist speech or racist images, like those old postcards of “happy darkies” eating watermelon, or pictures and jokes comparing African-Americans to apes or monkeys (come to think of it, those kinds of images are available today all over the Internet).

Too many liberal whites would rather just not see what is happening right under their noses when it comes to issues of race. I guess it’s somewhat understandable that they would prefer to avoid the inevitable blowback from conservatives, which comes whenever someone dares to point out examples of virulent racism coming from their side. Thank God for those who are willing to be criticized for “race-baiting” or “playing the race card” for their efforts to shed light on what is still, unfortunately, a persistent problem in our society.

You may want to read the most recent report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (it’s on their Web site) or the report from the U.S. Secret Service that points out that the number of threats made against the life of our current president is already up 400% over the number of threats against President Bush during his entire eight years in office. (Of course, now I can be considered an “alarmist” as well).

I was disheartened by Mark Tinsley’s decision to first create and then submit that particular comic, by King Features for its part in syndicating his work, by the N&O for publishing it, and then by the editorial page for adding insult to injury by somehow feeling compelled to publish that letter from the man who “laughed out loud” when he read the cartoon and said it was the cartoonist’s “best ever.”  

What is most amazing to me is that your newspaper still can’t print the “F” word, or other such similar words, but it can, perhaps inadvertently, advocate for hate and divisiveness by giving a platform to this kind of immature, irresponsible, agenda-driven “speech.”

I would never either ask for, or expect, any type of censorship or sanction against Tinsley or his pathetic little “comic strip.”  I just wanted to express my profound disappointment in the present state of the media, both liberal and otherwise, and while I’m at it, perhaps nudge the conscience of a sleeping giant.

Marshall Wade
Carrboro

---------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for including “Mallard Fillmore” in you comics. This insightful view into our current world from a conservative perspective is very refreshing.  Would that we had more of these rays of sunshine to brighten the darkness enveloping our Republic.   I applaud you for including this strip in your newspaper!

Jeff Jones
Wake Forest
---------------------------------------------------------

I could not disagree more than with the writers of the “Over the edge” and “No joke” letters and their remarks in The N&O. I look at only that cartoon daily, as it expresses, on most occasions, my very thoughts!

I even cut and taped the “Old Clunker” cartoon on my kitchen cabinet door to share with all who come to my house!

Seems as if those who love “Doonesbury” can’t handle a little of the opposing view! Shame on them.

Frances Howard
Holly Springs

--------------------

I want to add my vote to those of letter-writers in the Aug. 21 paper. I too think the comic strip “Mallard Fillmore” is outrageous and should be eliminated.

Let me be clear: My opposition is not because the artist’s political views differ from mine. No, I think any public figure has foibles or makes decisions or utters remarks that can — and often should — invite derision. Obama has made a few gaffes, and these are legitimately the stuff for cartoonists. And surely opponents can legitimately joke about policy positions they disagree with. But this “stuff” needs to be reality-based. To invent political positions out of whole cloth and then deride them — that’s not funny, it’s pathetic and sick.

I think the strip has gone beyond the bounds of propriety. Replace it with a cartoonist who lives in the real world, not a sick fantasy.

Christopher B. Sanford
Durham

----------------------

If “Doonesbury” goes on the op-ed page, why not the right-wing inane cartoon “Mallard Fillmore”? Better yet: save some money and drop it altogether. This junk does not belong in the comics section.

Dianne Schaffer
Raleigh

-------------------

I’ve been reading the strip “Mallard Fillmore” on the comics pages with some interest but little sympathy. I know The Washington Times initially ran Bruce Tinsley’s “conservative underdog” in the commentary section before moving it to the comics pages, but that’s obviously the wrong move. The strip clearly states Tinsley’s conservative opinions, and no thinking person would want to interfere with Tinsley’s right to do just that. However, fair play demands that either Tinsley’s emissary of opinion should properly join “Doonesbury” on the editorial page or “Doonesbury” should be welcomed back to the comics pages.

Michael Sarles
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

I laughed almost as hard at the two letters complaining about the Mallard Fillmore “clunker” strip as I did when I read the strip itself. I thought it was one of the writer’s best yet.  There are lots of comic strips that I don’t like.  You know what I do?  I don’t read them. Maybe the people who are “offended” and “disgusted” should learn to do the same.

Stanley Cardwell
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

I have not lived here long enough to be knowledgeable regarding your decision to place “Doonesbury” on the Opinion pages, though I can understand it.

However, what I cannot understand is any system of logic that keeps “Mallard Fillmore” on the comics pages. If anything, “Mallard” is even more politically charged than “Doonesbury.”

It appears to me that both should be on the same page, not separated. It IS the law of the land that separate is not equal after all

Is there a reason that you can defend?

Keith Bearman
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

In response to the Aug. 22 letter “Duck the duck” that told readers who disliked “Mallard Fillmore’s” humor to not read it. This is not the problem. The problem is it was spreading lies. This is not even an argument of putting it near Dwane Powell’s editorial cartoons or “Doonesbury.” It is now an argument to take it out of the paper altogether.

Political cartooning is something I encourage and support. Spreading lies is something I don't. I am a Democrat, but if “Doonesbury” said Bush was setting up death panels when he wasn’t I would vote for it to be taken out of the paper.
I am a 15-year-old boy who gets his news from right, left, middle, and party neutral sources. I don’t think laughing about fake death panels or real death panels is funny.

Henry Stokes
Pittsboro