I'm with Clod, this would really pique my interest if the guy could draw or was funny. In fact, since the guy can't draw and is not funny, that makes me want to understand why we know about it. So I looked into it -- and guess what.
This is the result of the NY Times making hay from a WEEKLY, FREE rag that covers "farming and farm issues in 33 counties in Northwest and North Central Iowa". 24,000 households got this weekly paper, for free. Really.
But this cartoonist made his living by --
no, he's a farmer!
A shitty semi-pro cartoonist from a teeny free paper got fired, why is that Times-newsworthy?
Here is the Times story. Suspiciously, not asked for comment is the person who fired him, or anyone at all involved that chain of thinking. The cartoonist says that complaints got him fired, but the Times fails to talk to anyone in the decision chain, which is actually poor journalism. When you're writing for journalism, you're supposed to get both sides of the story. I understand that's Journalism 101.
So the Times talks to Monsanto! Who says
Quote:
Monsanto said it had no role in the decision to fire Mr. Friday. It said that it first heard about it when The Des Moines Register wrote an article on May 2.
“This is not the first time we’ve been the subject of a joke or political cartoon and it probably won’t be the last. It is much easier to laugh at ourselves than it is to stifle humor,” the company said in a blog post.
|
K, so they didn't complain... who did?
If the NY Fucking Times won't tell us, can we figure it out from that
Des Moines TV News story? WHY YES WE CAN.
Quote:
|
Friday’s editor said a seed dealer pulled their advertisements with Farm News as a result of the cartoon, and others working at the paper disagreed with the jokes made about the agriculture corporations.
|
A seed
dealer. Not Monsanto, Dupont Pioneer, or John Deere. Because they aren't advertisers in a small, weekly, free rag. Like, Cherry Hill Nissan buys ads in the Cherry Hill Welcomat, not fucking Nissan.
Huh. The NY Times said it was a "seed company". Does that phrasing makes you think it was Monsanto itself? Sure does! Does asking Monsanto about it make it seem like Monsanto is the "other side" of this story? Sure does! Why write the story that way? Gosh, I don't know! If you're trying to inform the public, why WOULD you write the story that way?
And other people at that little weekly paper
itself disagreed with his editorial take? Huh, the Times didn't bother to point that out. I guess we didn't need that information!
That, to me, is business as usual.