Apparently that word only applies to political cartoons that criticize the press. More specifically, the New York Times...

"He added that the letter that "really gave me second thoughts" was from former Democrat Publisher Carrol Dadisman, who wrote: "In more than 50 years of various responsibilities for newspapers and editorial pages, I've defended a lot of editorial cartoons. But this one is indefensible."

Since when did the truth become indefensible Ms. Dadisman?

If the 5th column fits.....

It's not necessarily a matter of "truth," but of expressing an opinion. And a well-run editorial page is one which publishes a free range of opinions.

It's that old, silly, I may not agree with you but I'll defend to the death your right to say it thing.

A longtime journalist should have recognized that.

The cartoon was in fact printed -- so the point of your headline and item is..?

Transterrestrial, your HQ for political grievances -- fabricated if necessary.

Well Monte, where did Rand say that it wasn't printed?

Rand,

You are so wrong on this: Apparently that word only applies to political cartoons that criticize the press.

Did the NYT print any Danish political cartoons recently?

> And a well-run editorial page is one which publishes a free range of opinions.

There's never been a "well-run editorial page" by that definition. No responsible newspaper runs letters that advocate shooting city council members, for example. During World War II, American editorial pages did not run pro-nazi editorials. It's not that editorial pages used to publish every opinion. It's that editorial pages used to be on our side.