My POV…

Today, I will be talking about the recent Doonesbury cartoon uproar. If you are unfamiliar with it, basically about a dozen newspapers across the country were upset with the use of the term "turd blossum" and either pulled the cartoon or edited it. Before I give my take on the situation, I’ll list out both sides of the arguments as I see it. I’ve colored the arguments red (for the pulling or editing of the comic) and blue (against the pulling or editing of the comic), followed by my comments in yellow.

This type of language is inappropriate for a comic strip in a publicly circulated newspaper.
It’s not a curse word. "Turd Blossum" is Pres. Bush’s actual nickname for Karl Rove.
I don’t think the word itself if bad. There are far worse words being used in print.

"Doonesbury" is considered a primarily adult comic due to its heavy political references. Adults are not the only people who will read it. When printed side-by-side next to comics directed at children, restraint and common sense should be used when creating dialog. Had this only appeared on the comics private website or in more mature publications, it may not have been an issue.
"Doonesbury" is considered a primarily adult comic due to its heavy political references. And as such, children won’t read it because they won’t understand it. If they are savvy to understand the satire, a phrase such as "turd blossum" would hardly shatter their world.
If the cartoon were considered too high brow for children, then cartoons of this type should be put towards the end of the comcis page. While I have no problem with this cartoon being in print, I don’t understand why the "soap opera" comics and political comics are mixed in with those clearly directed at children.

This is not the first time "Doonesbury" has come under fire. Garry Trudeau had to have been fully aware that this would cause some problems and did so for the shock value. He’s just trying to get attention.
Simply because you think someone might object to something you have to say doesn’t mean you shouldn’t say it. And if his goal was to get attention (which should be the goal of every comic creator), he got it not by what he has to say, but by the uproar caused by the media. If the media hadn’t gotten ahold of this, no one would have given it a second thought.
Garry probably did want to up his readership and the best way to get free advertising is through controversy. In order for everyone to understand the problem, they’ll have to read his strip. And they’ll continue to read it to see if it happens again in the future.

The First Amendment protects Garry Trudeau’s right to create his comic strip any way he pleases. He has the right to use any style of speech he wishes and if that includes using the President’s actual nickname for one of his closest allies. Obviously, it’s not a derogatory word.
While Garry Trudeau may have the right to create his comic strip any way he chooses, the newspapers ultimately have the say in whether or not they wish to publish it. His right to free speech is not surpressed. The editors have the task of deciding what their subscribers would and would not wish to read.
I’ve seen no word that Garry is upset or even surprised by the response he’s gotten. This tells me that he fully understands a newpapers right to not publish his works.

The conclusion I have to come is that this is a non-issue topic. The only reason it is in the headlines and being discussed by people is because the media is trying to turn it into something it isn’t. I highly doubt fans of "Doonesbury" would be offended by the term, and the people who would be probably don’t even read it. Also, it’s only 10-12 newspapers out of 1,400!!! It’s no big deal.