Plain Dealer drops Dilbert

[OscarMadison]

Word in fandom circles is Adams has been nuts for years. He thinks reality isn't real and he's writing the simulation. I thought he might be trolling. Maybe not.

 

[Azrael]

Word in fandom circles is Adams has been nuts for years. He thinks reality isn't real and he's writing the simulation. I thought he might be trolling. Maybe not.

A martyr to cancel culture?

 

[OscarMadison]

Depends on who you ask. More along the lines of solipsistic village idiot, really.

 

[Azrael]

Depends on who you ask. More along the lines of solipsistic village idiot, really.

But isn't this exactly the way a solipsistic idiot would try to make himself a martyr to Cancel Culture?

It is!

 

[Azrael]

 

[Azrael]

 

[Michael_ Gee]

As anyone who worked at a newspaper that was so foolhardy as to tinker with its comics section knows, nothing is more fraught with peril. People who read the comics do so with fanatical loyalty, even if the strip they follow completely sucks and is drawn and/or written by the great-great-great nephew of its creator. Dilbert hasn't been funny for some time, like a decade, but had it been canceled on those grounds, reader fury would have erupted. I mean, Charles Shultz has been dead for 20 years, and there are still papers who print reruns of Peanuts, because there are still readers who want it. Also, it is noteworthy how few editors in top newspaper management read the funnies themselves. This has been true since the '70 and '80s when papers were riding high. I'll bet more than a few papers now canceling Dilbert had management unaware the paper carried it.

 

[jr/shotglass]

Harrisburg's explanation of pulling the strip.

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2023/...ishing-the-comic-strip-dilbert-heres-why.html

 

[HanSenSE]

He also threw this on the fire:


No doubt the "but freedum of speech" crowd will latch onto this soon. And although it's been said, many times, many ways, Hearst, Advance, Lee, ect. are free not to give him a platform.

 

[DanOregon]

The thing is - if someone wants to find a daily Dilbert strip - it's probably easier online than it would be to find a copy of the local paper in any event.

 

[Bud_Bundy]

As anyone who worked at a newspaper that was so foolhardy as to tinker with its comics section knows, nothing is more fraught with peril. People who read the comics do so with fanatical loyalty, even if the strip they follow completely sucks and is drawn and/or written by the great-great-great nephew of its creator. Dilbert hasn't been funny for some time, like a decade, but had it been canceled on those grounds, reader fury would have erupted. I mean, Charles Shultz has been dead for 20 years, and there are still papers who print reruns of Peanuts, because there are still readers who want it. Also, it is noteworthy how few editors in top newspaper management read the funnies themselves. This has been true since the '70 and '80s when papers were riding high. I'll bet more than a few papers now canceling Dilbert had management unaware the paper carried it.

We did a comics survey 15 or 20 years ago and one or two of the strips showed very little readership. Once they were cancelled, though, the crazies came out of the woodwork. I'd rather take a phone call from a Pished-off soccer mom that some of those idiots.

 

[Azrael]

In the spirit of the thread: does the punishment fit the crime?