Comments on: Simple fix to a non-problem

by: Jake

Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:11:43 +0000

The thing about comic syndication is that if there’s only one newspaper in an area, only a certain number of comics can appear in that newspaper. It’s not like TV, where you can get several different channels. Therefore, the N&O is keeping several comics away from the people who would like them. The N&O can’t run them all. Another paper would have to pick up the slack. My opinion is that Mallard Fillmore is not funny. Every joke, if there is one, is the same: Liberals are stupid. If it tried a different punchline more often and used its political bent sparingly, I might not think it’s so bad. But as it is, I believe that there are better comics out there that people in Raleigh haven’t heard of, but people in, say, Charlotte have. To add to that, I agree that Mallard Fillmore should be on the editorial page. Its lack of jokes other than “Liberals are stupid” certainly qualifies it.

by: Kevin

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:22:44 +0000

The issue is that other people want to control what other people might see and read. Simple as that.

by: Jim

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:43:54 +0000

Dan was on the radio today. Anbody notice besides me? And he did a fine job too I might add.

As to the comics, maybe they should eliminate them all to save paper or turn them all into ads to boost revenue. Maybe they could start including product placements.

by: Jim

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:43:33 +0000

Perhaps Chris isn’t getting enough fiber in her diet.

by: Chris

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:28:39 +0000

The answer to Dan’s “question” is “nothing.” There’s nothing so hard about “turning the freakin’ page” and simply not reading Mallard Fillmore. But that’s not the proper question. You can pick any comic, from the most popular in the country today to one you conceived and drew five minutes ago, and when you run it there will be people who love it and people who hate it in varying degrees. But, a newspaper can only offer a finite number of comics, so it is proper to weigh which ones it runs. The problem with Mallard Fillmore is not the fact that it is neither funny nor clever (several in The N&O meet that standard), but rather that it is essentially an editorial cartoon and that running it on the comics page is not consistent with how The N&O treats other comics, namely Doonesbury. It probably should go on the editorial page, but the editorial page editors, apparently, either don’t want it in particular or don’t want to give up the space for another regular strip. I don’t know what the answer is; Vaden’s reasons for removing it aren’t very compelling. Personally, I’d like to see it replaced with a comic that’s done better, from the left or right. If the comics page has a political edge, so be it; any strip with somethign to say will be political sometimes. But to simply say don’t read it if you don’t like it is a decision not to deal with the issue. And taking Mallard Fillmore off of The N&O’s pages isn’t the same as firing Keith Olberrman. Mallard Fillmore’s author will still draw and publish the strip, and most of The N&O’s readers will be able to avail themselves of it. Olberrman’s current show would cease to exist, regardless of future employment.

by: Chris

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:21:48 +0000

The answer to Dan’s “question” is “nothing.” There’s nothing so hard about “turning the freakin’ page” and simply not reading Mallard Fillmore. But that’s not the proper question. You can pick any comic, from the most popular in the country today to one you conceived and drew five minutes ago, and when you run it there will be people who love it and people who hate it in varying degrees. But, a newspaper can only offer a finite number of comics, so it is proper to weigh which ones it runs. The problem with Mallard Fillmore is not the fact that it is neither funny nor clever (several in The N&O meet that standard), but rather that it is essentially an editorial cartoon and that running it on the comics page is not consistent with how The N&O treats other comics, namely Doonesbury. It should go on the editorial page, but the editorial page editors, apparently, either don’t want it in particular or don’t want to give up the space for another regular strip. I don’t know what the answer is; Vaden’s reasons for removing it aren’t very compelling. Personally, I’d like to see it replaced with a comic that’s done better, from the left or right, and I don’t care if the comics page has a political edge. But to simply say don’t read it if you don’t like it is a decision not to deal with the issue. And taking Mallard Fillmore off of The N&O’s pages isn’t the same as firing Keith Olberrman. Mallard Fillmore’s author will still draw and publish the strip, and most of The N&O’s readers will be able to avail themselves of it. Olberrman’s current show would cease to exist, regardless of future employment.

by: Doug

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:51:53 +0000

Exactly Jim.

BP wrote, “There are other comics I don�t like which I pass up reading.”

OK. Then do that. Rinse, repeat.

by: Jim

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:26:46 +0000

Still, no one has answered Dan’s question.

by: Sheila

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:10:22 +0000

If Doonesbury is relegated to the editorial page, so should MF. And I agree with BP; it’s not even remotely funny. Isn’t that what the comics page is for-humor? Except in the case of Prince Valiant. That one sucks too.

by: Doug

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:25:01 +0000

BP, Whether a conservative comic meets your specific and exacting standards of humor should certainly be your measurement on whether to read it or not. However, I’m not sure why it should control what other people who obviously enjoy the comic, want to read and enjoy. We don’t need a comic equivalent of “The Fairness Doctrine” to limit the free market of comic ideas.