We erred in publishing cartoon

[AngryOldDem]

63. I call absolute bullshit on this:

"I was uncomfortable with the depiction when I saw it after it was posted."

The editor did not see this before it was posted? The editor does not sign off on content before it hits the press/Web/whatever?

If this IS true, and the Star gives Gary Varvel free reign to post whatever he wants under its banner, then the Star deserves whatever blowback it gets. And make no mistake: The Star didn't take it down because it knew that a majority of its readership would approve, and it wasn't counting on this going viral. It just didn't all of a sudden develop scruples.

This, sadly, is pretty typical around these parts. Every week we get a free shopper type newspaper foisted upon us in the Indy 'burbs that consistently depicts Obama as a monkey in its editorial cartoons.