ALERT: New York Times Caves to Republican Pressure, Cancels Ted Rall's Cartoons



If you read my cartoons at the New York Times website, you may have noticed a hole on the comics page where my work used to appear. It seems that, under the dismally lame cover of "moving in a different direction," my cartoons were the only feature out of 10 (all supplied by Universal Press Syndicate) that the Times saw fit to drop.



My trouble with the Times website dates back to the "terror widows" controversy. That cartoon, which appeared in March 2002, became the target of a coordinated email attack by right-wing "warbloggers." These pro-Bush bloggers, coasting on a wave of post-9/11 patriotism, sent out emails to their followers (helpful souls forwarded some to me) asking each other to deluge the Times and other papers with complaints that purported to come from their readers. The Times, under the mistaken belief that hundreds of their readers had complained about the cartoon, dropped that particular piece.



As I said at the time, it's their paper. They can run what they like. And I still believe that.



Since that time, the Times website has been lackadaisical about maintaining my link to their site. Cartoons often went days without geting posted. It seems that the warbloggers consistent campaign of email harrassment has finally taken its toll over at Times Digital. Because they're annoyed by receiving so many email complaints about my work--all of them motivated by partisan politics--the Times has decided to drop my cartoons entirely.



Other cartoonists have decried the censorship of their cartoons over political (rather than quality) concerns, but never me. I've always believed that papers can run whatever they want--or not. But this is different. For one thing, no money is involved. That's right--I didn't get one penny from the Times for running my work online. The syndicate was giving them the content for free--for the exposure, as they say. So when I ask for your help, please rest assured that this isn't some cheesy financial appeal. If the Times picks me up again, it won't make any difference to my checkbook.



The fact of the matter is that what the Times has done here to me--and to you--represents a dangerous precedent for a free press (or, in this case, an online press). They've sent the message that political pressure works. It's one thing for an editor to decide that a cartoon no longer works for editorial reasons, or that it's not as good as it used to be. It's quite another to cancel it simply because you're tired of being deluged with hate mail. Dealing with feedback is an editor's job. If you don't like the hate mail, delete it.



If you agree that the Times' stifling of a progressive editorial voice sets a dangerous precedent, please tell them:



Martin Nisenholtz, CEO of New York Times Digital



New York Times Letters to the Editor



Ombudsman Daniel Okrent