The Opus Cartoon You'll Only See at Salon
Click on image for full strip
Last week we told you that Salon was running two "Opus" cartoons, featuring spiritual seeker Lola Granola's stint as a "radical Islamist," that many newspapers, including the Washington Post, declined to publish. This week, Salon is running Berkeley Breathed's original, unedited version of the Lola Granola finale, and it's slightly different from the one approved for distribution to newspapers by the Washington Post Company.[..]
As I noted last week, Editor & Publisher and others reported that some newspapers had concerns about running a cartoon that might somehow be construed as insensitive to Muslims. I'd like to insert a line here about Salon's courage in running these two strips, but I didn't see anything that made me think twice about them -- except the news that others wouldn't publish them. We're proud to have Breathed as a contributor, and sad about what this episode says about newspaper publishing today.
Doomsburied!
I'm very proud to say that my paper, The Palm Beach Post, ran this cartoon yesterday. :-P
WooHoo!!! Opus is back when we need him most.
Somehow I had missed this controversy, probably because our local paper ran both strips - unedited. Nice to know.
So these newspapers are willing to promote the pointless slaughter of millions of Muslims by spoonfeeding us regurgitated White house rhetoric, but they're afraid to publish a cartoon that very, very gently pokes fun at Muslim traditions? We sure do have our priorities screwed up.
Just FYI, the L.A. Times ran it in full, unedited.
Um, hurray?
It's not particularly amusing. At least when Boondocks was being political it was still funny.
The Wisconsin State Journal published it. Fearless and free.
Only...where?
http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/feature/07/09/02/wpopu070902.gif
The SF Chronicle also ran this as a full page color spread in the Sunday 'Pink' entertainment pages, as they do each week. No big deal, and not a particularly funny cartoon either. It is ridiculous to see how low newspaper editors will stop to pander to Islam. It only encourages more unreasonable demands from the religious yahoos.
Sorry, "stoop" not "stop".
The Observer Reporter of Washington Pennsylvania ran it!
YAY!
Opus rocks
I'm sure Ahiida.com would be happy that it ran in a bunch of newspapers... free advertising! :D
In a word:
THPPT!
Ran in the Houston rag!
As a Muslim, I can't say that this cartoon offends me at all. That is not to say that there AREN'T and haven't been other cartoons that present a much more insulting view of Islam. Those are the ones that arouse the most controversy. Nevertheless, criticism of Islam and Islamic dress habits, coming from a non-Muslim newspaper cartoon, does seem somewhat insensitive and unnecessary. What's the point? The female character in the comic strip is exercising her right to wear whatever she wants. Why does that offend anyone who doesn't believe as she does, that what a person chooses to wear is important? The strip shows that this person is probably not settled on her habit of dress and I'd expect her to go through various changes in attitude before coming to any self-made decision about it. Why is that anyone else's business? It reminds me of the British critic of Islamicism in Istanbul whose main objection to encroaching Islamic habits what that he could no longer see bikinis on the shores of the Bosporus. Boo hoo!
steve @ 6:
Sorry, but the LA Times did make some changes
Changed "The Middle East" to "The World" and elinimated the link on Bill the Cats sign.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e398/plug111/opus.jpg
It ran with ONE edit in the L.A. Times comics section:
The plug for Ahiida.com was replaced with "No, it's REAL, we didn't make this up. "BurqaThong" was our invention!"
This strip ran unedited in the Birthplace of Liberty, in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
"I know not what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones.” Albert Einstein.
Sorry, much as I've alway liked Breathed, I just didn't find this funny. Aren't they called "The Funnies?"
Props, however, to those papers that ran it uncensored. I'm always down with that.
It ran in the Eugene Register-Guard with only "Middle East" replaced by "World." And for the record, I think the cartoon is making fun of Lola Granola, who's always been a dingbat, and Steve, who's always been rather a pig.
My paper, The Sacramento Bee, ran the strip as is!
Wasn't the objection to the Danish cartoons only that Muhammad was portrayed? This self-censoring business seems to be out of ignorance than anything else.
Agree totally with #5. US papers scared of insensitivity to Muslims, how about not running propaganda inviting bombing and killing them?
Reminds me of a flyer that went around at Yale before the invasion of Afghanistan, girl in burka next to girl in bikini, with the caption "Which would you prefer?"
Up here in Winnipeg, Canada, the daily broadsheet ran it *almost* unchanged. "middle east" was changed to "world".
Speech should only be regulated when it DIRECTLY advocates violence. I find it sad when those Danish cartoons are thought of as hate speech, yet people are strangely silent about all those "Behead those who insult Islam" posters during the Danish protests.
In this thread, R Paul says that it's somewhat "unnecessary." The beauty of living in a free society is that one person saying that offensive material is "unnecessary" has no power over others to constrain their speech.
It is the fall of Western civilization when we can no longer publish cartoons...
this isn't even funny.
I'm more interested in which papers didn't run it -- since mine did.
Funny or not isn't the question. It is the decision to run the cartoon. Is it all right to make fun of Muslim beliefs in cartoons, that is the question. It is best answered by asking is it all right to make fun of Catholic beliefs? Or is it all right to make fun of Jewish beliefs? Or is it all right to make fund of atheistic beliefs? Seriously folks, the answer to all of these is not yes.
...but how can you swim in that?
Why is Muslim culture so afraid of women? Are Muslim men that unable to control themselves? Islam presents itself as a stone-age mindset, one that refuses to recognize humanity as it is, a constantly evolving social structure that allows new ideas to be spoken and tested and incorporated, and misinformed ideas to be discarded. For that matter, why is this also true of authoritarian religions in general?
What is the world so afraid of? I can't figure it out.
The only ones who might be offended by this cartoon are that lonely 28% out there who still cling to the delusion that George W. is doing a good job as President. There is no "making fun of" or "insulting" anyone's beliefs but those who think that "And THAT, little dude, is how we're gonna straighten out the Middle East".
I think that is one of the funny points made by Opus. The guy doesn't really care about her freedom to wear what she wants. He just wants to see her in a hot bikini. Its all about him and his wants. The other point is that dictating to others what their "freedom" means doesn't work, either at home or in the Middle East.
The cartoon isn't so much poking fun at Islam as it is poking funny at American cluelessness about what freedom really is.
Why is
MuslimEvangelical culture so afraid of women? AreMuslimEvangelical men that unable to control themselves?IslamEvangelicalism presents itself as a stone-age mindset, one that refuses to recognize humanity as it is, a constantly evolving social structure that allows new ideas to be spoken and tested and incorporated, and misinformed ideas to be discarded. For that matter, why is this also true of authoritarian religions in general?What is the world so afraid of? I can’t figure it out.
It's not just a Muslim thing ;)
Fatwah, fatwah, I declare a fatwah! Open season on Opus!
It was carried in the Palm Beach Post. I loved it!
Great satire.
Llyonnoc @ 31:
Oh, please. The answer *is* yes.
Never heard of satire?
pissed off patricia @ 2:
Amazingly enough, so did the San Antonio Express-News!
This was in my hometown paper, the Lexington Herald-Leader.
So many people are missing the point of the cartoon. It wasnt just a gentle critique of muslim dress, but also about american attitudes dealing with the middle east. The way steve dallas (portrayed in the comic) acts is very close to how american foreign policy operates. i thought it was obvious but it seems most focus on the "oh no, its moderately critical of muslims slant" which i dont think was really the point.
Chet! @ 39:
Agreed - though it need not be satire. Freedom of speech should have few limits. Off the top of my head, the only one I can think of is the same for the written word as it is for images - child porn.
Caving to the sensibilities of groups is not politically correct - it IS politically dangerous and anti-itellectual. The dumbing of society begins with such rules. Who's to say the ban shouldn't extend to Republicans. C&L is out of business and George III gets to designate his own successor.
Jeeeesus... it's barely a gentle poke.
straight shooter @ 43:
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Just a couple of days ago on another site I had to correct someone who had this mistaken idea that freedom of religion includes freedom from ridicule for a belief. I'll respect someone's right to hold a particular beliefs, but I sure don't have to respect that person's every belief no matter how ludicrous.
The point of this comic seems to have gone way over most people's heads
fellowvoyager @ 46:
Over some people's heads, perhaps. But I think you're missing the point of this posting. Many newspapers either didn't run the strip or ran it in altered form because they were afraid of offending some people's religious sensibilities. That's what the posting was about, so the comments are largely about that and not the whole American-attitudes-dealing-with-the-Middle-East thing.
Are the papers not running the strips because of the Muslim references or this:
Content also includes what [WPWG Editorial Director/General Manager Alan] Shearer described as "a sex joke a little stronger than we normally see." -- http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1...
Thing Fish @ 48:
I guess the "sex joke" is in the Aug. 26 strip (final 2 panels). Regarding the Sept. 2 strip, the offending portions appear to be the Muslim or Middle East references. They're the parts that we're altered ("world" sted "Middle East") when the strip ran in altered form.
R Paul @ 17:
You didn't get the punch line. The cartoon came up in the Oregonian and I had a good laugh. If you recall the male character tried to pull some kind of male domination (eg typical male chauvenistic attitude) and she totally blew him off. Showing both an independence that she can wear whatever the hell she wants. It's a jab at male domination using muslim dress code) At least that's what I got out of it. Your mileage of course will vary.
cain
woo! I made the 50th comment! Do I win a prize?
I agree that there's a subtle tie between Steve and the US, and the lady and Iraq. Steve places an arbitrary "benchmark" on her that she fails to meet. She chose her way, but didn't meet his "benchmark".
Draw your own conclusions here.
cain @ 51:
Nope, seeing as how it's #51...
:)
Rabbit @ 53:
Look again, Rabbit. He made the 50th AND 51st comments.
The Dutch cartoonist Peter de Wit has been lampooning muslims (and everyone else) for years. I do hope you can some day pick up a translated and regionalised copy of his Burka Babes (http://www.sigmund.nl/?p=burkababes).
This aint advertisement. Just a little reminder that, while none of the American newspapers posted any of the Mohammed cartoons, nearly half of European newspapers did.
i think it says the media thinks the muslims don't have a sense of humor.
are they right?
Occasionally, when we find an objectionable passage in a comic which might possibly offend our more sensitive readers, we simple "white it out."
That was Opus explaining to an irate reader why the punchline for his favorite strip was missing. From a Bloom County strip of the 80's.
Some things never change.
sassafra @ 56:
Even if and when they are right, I'm not sure I would like to loose my sense of humor (provided I got some).
To Europeans, not to cave in to pious pressure from either christians or muslims is a fairly balanced act, certainly now that many of the muslim youth in our countries feel enraged by recent events. So a sense of humor is vital.
people still get newspapers?
Lots of people reporting that their newspapers ran the cartoon as is. Go look again and see if "Middle East" was replaced by "the world". Evidently several editors opted for that version instead of the unexpurgated one which ran in Salon.
MY local paper,the Hartford Courant ran it as is. The Courant used to be a liberal paper,but since its been bought out by the Times syndicate,its trended right.
Both the S.F.Chronicle and Santa Rosa Press Democrat ran a version with `the world' substituted for `the middle east.' in the last panel. Not what I'd call a knee slapper in either case.
ghostofstanleyknowles @ 26:
Yo, Stanley, where ya been ? Let's do Kelekis tomorrow for breakfast . Or Sals on the bridge .
iraqconcilable @ 63:
LOL! Good to see another Winnipegger (or ex-Winnipegger) at C&L.
I'm proud to say that my local paper, The Orlando Sentinel, ran the comic.
The Chicago Tribune published both, very amusing.
i think people must understand the history of opus to get the joke
steve is a male chauvinist pig
the joke was on him...not on muslims
when i first started reading opus, i thought of it as a direct ripoff of doonesbury, but breathed's satire is much more cutting, and one really has to think when reading his toons
i thought he had totally retired
havent read the funny papers in years
glad to see he is still going
and yes, it is ok to make fun of religion...or the lack thereof
Bwahaha "Burqini" - priceless.
I haven't read much Opus, but what I have I've liked.
ghostofstanleyknowles @ 64:
Still living large in the Peg , Stan . Besides, there is no "ex" in Winnipegger . One superbadass city ( h/t to Mr. Timberlake ) .
Ozymandius @ 32:
Just like Ophelia did in "Hamlet," that's how.
WARNING: Burqinis not suitable for undertows or rip tides.
Llyonnoc @ 31:
Seriously Llyonnoc, lighten up. We're on a little wet rock, hurtling through space. Consciousness is an evolutionary fluke. Geez, have a drink.
Llyonnoc @ 31:
I beg to differ. The First Amendment gives a person the right to believe just about anything and call it holy. You can believe crackers turn into Jesus-meat in your tum-tum. You can believe a semi-literate nomad rode to heaven . . . on a horse . . . that had wings. You can believe that the entire oceanic balance of the world altered for your people to cross a seabed on dry land. You can believe some dude found magic glasses that helped him read a document that said Indians are long-lost Jews. You can, in a word, believe any crazy, cockamamie, fantastic stuff you want. But the First Amendment does NOT require anyone else at all to think that what you believe makes you special or holy or not to be chuckled at for not believing what the "true believers" know to be true.
The real intolerance lies in the True Believers' inability to conceptualize that others just don't buy the hooey, whichever hooey may be at issue at any given time, be it magic crackers, flying prophets, parting seas or any of the other myriad fantasies humans have created to make the night a little less spooky and death a little less real.
So, seriously folks, the answer to Llyonnoc's question is a rather emphatic "Why, yes! Yes, it is!"
You can believe that the entire oceanic balance of the world altered for your people to cross a seabed on dry land.
I thought you were referring to the Bering Strait theory at first!
Cartoon Coyote @ 73:
Hey, wow! Maybe that's the ancient story they remembered through their myth. Maybe the Indians ARE long, lost Children of Israel! lol Kinda makes me queasy about those saltines I ate earlier today!
For the record, the Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette ran this strip edited yesterday.
As for those who are crying foul about this, live with it. Religion is not the sacred cow it's made out to be. Boo-hoo, your religious beliefs or someone else's get made fun of? Big whoop, mine get seriously derided all the time.
NOT ONE of us should be "beyond/above/immune to" "satire/ridicule/legitimate questioning", regardless of upbringing. Humans should not be raised in such an awful manner. I find the whole thing distasteful.
i think it was very brave of the newspapers to NOT print that cartoon. as an american my feeling get hurt when i find out that our health care system sucks and that loser counrties like france and italy actually have better health and health care than us. better food and clothes too . but our brave newspapers don't print that stuff either because it would just hurt our feelings.
Yawn...
This is news, why? From what I can tell, the newspapers didn't run it because it was a critique of our culture, not because it was a critique of Muslims. No surprise there. Any questioning of our American exceptionalism is unwanted. The change from "Middle East" to "World" changed the cartoon little. The reader still gets the point. The only thing I think it changes is it takes the focus of the criticism off our debacle in Iraq slightly. The criticism was of US not THEM. Geez.
Why aren't we instead talking about the fact that we are still in Iraq killing people? You know, the country that was no threat to us? The one we aggressively attacked? Or how about all the people we have tortured and are torturing? How about the fact that that is censored from a lot of papers?
Do you honestly think that some of these papers that willingly promote war on and killing of Muslims censored this because they don't want to offend? The same papers who have op eds arguing why it is ok and necessary to torture Muslims?
Whatever. I'll be amused when there is a running cartoon making fun of Christians without is being yanked after the Christian right threatens someone, or when there is a cartoon poking fun at Jews without antisemitism being thrown around. But, that really isn't the point, since this cartoon was not really about Muslims, but more about our exceptionalism.
The Albuquerque Journal ran it unedited.
Raleigh N&O ran it unedited. I didn't even know someone didn't run it. What's the big deal??
Let's not forget the controversy over the Danish cartoons. Muslims protested, demanding that offenders be beheaded. And except for "Free Inqiuiry", not a single periodical in the USA ran the cartoons.
Of course, all religious leaders condemned the cartoons rather than the protests.
How long are we going to live in this state, where we can acknowledge the threats of Muslim extremists in our actions, but are chastised if he acknowledge them in our words?
Incidentally, the reason Christians don't perform as many suicide bombings as Muslims is obvious: Christians have all the money and all the power. If a "Twilight Zone"-type thing happened overnight, and suddenly all the richest countries in the world were Muslim countries, and all the torn-apart imperial playgrounds were Christian places... which religion do you think would have more suicide bombers?
fellowvoyager @ 42:
I think you're absolutely correct. As often happens with satire, people don't get it and think that an idea is being promoted, when in reality, it's being attacked.
And even though I don't agree with Richard Dawkins entirely, I think he makes some good points in the God Delusion about how its a little absurd that how we treat religion with kid gloves. Its probably not the worst thing in the world to poke a little fun at various aspects of fundamentalism, what ever its form. Although, I agree that would be completely hypocritical to poke fun of one to promote another.
My paper, the San Antonio Express News(TEXAS) printed both of the cartoons on the front page of the comics section, as written.
"sad about what this episode says about newspaper publishing today"...
No, its sad what it says about the state of American liberals today. You all are scared to death of offending Muslims, when the Muslims think nothing about chopping people's heads off that disagree with their idiotic, violent religion. Thats what.
I've been following this, and it's really pretty pathetic. The cartoons are pretty tame.
Here’s Why It Wasn’t Printed Says @ 84: Gosh, I'm trying to decide which is more ridiculous, your implicit assertion that the MSM is liberal, or your statement that all Muslims are violent and practice a "idiotic, violent religion." I'm going with the latter, your alarmist, bigoted statement, reeking of far more fear and ignorance than this admittedly stupid move by a newspaper. A salaam aleikum.
Comments are closed on this entry