View Mobile Site

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos


Cartoon had no purpose

Posted: January 8, 2010 7:29 p.m.
Updated: January 10, 2010 4:55 a.m.
For the most part I find The Signal's opinion page amusing in its predictability and leftist goose-stepping, and the feigned disgust at guest columnists' plagiarism is priceless entertainment to be sure.

It is obvious you folks scan the big boys at the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times for at the very least a guideline on how to proceed in any given topic. I personally have no problem with that; I'm sure it saves you loads of time coming up with original, thoughtful opinions.

But your choices of political cartoonists have always amazed me, going all the way back to the amateurish, childish nonsense of your in-house guys Randy Wicks and Marshall Toomey.

Again, that's just fine. It is your paper and more or less your opinion. But of all the hundreds of choices you had on Jan. 4, you printed a purely mean-spirited depiction of Rush Limbaugh that had no insight other than to be snotty, all the while wringing your hands over editorial purity.

In this case, a cartoon that had no other purpose than to be nasty was worth a thousand words to define The Signal.

Editor's note: We endeavor to showcase cartoonists whose opinions span the political spectrum from conservative to liberal.


Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.


Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...