SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Food Politics reports that Rick Friday, a long time cartoonist for Farm News, was dismissed for offending "a large company affiliated with one of the corporations mentioned in a cartoon." The political cartoon is critical of Big Ag CEOs, which earned more than 2,000 Iowa farmers combined.
In a Facebook post the cartoonist, Rick Friday, explained:
I am no longer the Editorial Cartoonist for Farm News due to the attached cartoon which was published yesterday. Apparently a large company affiliated with one of the corporations mentioned in the cartoon was insulted and cancelled their advertisement with the paper, thus, resulting in the reprimand of my editor and cancellation of It's Friday cartoons after 21 years of service and over 1090 published cartoons to over 24,000 households per week in 33 counties of Iowa.
I did my research and only submitted the facts in my cartoon.
That's okay, hopefully my children and my grandchildren will see that this last cartoon published by Farm News out of Fort Dodge, Iowa, will shine light on how fragile our rights to free speech and free press really are in the country.
The Des Moines Register explains further:
The CEOs at the ag giants earned about $52.9 million last year, based on Morningstar data. Monsanto and DuPont, the parent of Johnston-based Pioneer, are large seed and chemical companies, and Deere is a large farm equipment manufacturer.
Profits for the three companies, all with large operations across Iowa, also have declined as farm income has been squeezed. After peaking in 2013, U.S. farm income this year is projected to fall to $183 billion, its lowest level since 2002.
It seems like in the U.S. you free to say what you like, but if you offend the wrong people you're free to lose your job despite the protections you are provided and encouraged to use.
(Score: 3, Funny) by art guerrilla on Friday May 06 2016, @01:19AM
so, advertiser-funded = korporate-kontrolled with the 'right' to spike any/all stories ? ? ?
are you recognizing that as reality, or saying that is just how 'journalism' should be: pay to play ? ? ?
we DO have -for 90-95% of the generally available media- korporate-kontrolled media... which is THE major reason why we have endless 'natural' disaster stories, cats in trees, etc, and NOTHING about small town or big town or capital town corruption, korporate fraud, much less banksters hijacking the economy etc...
a FUNCTIONING media actually interested in journalism would follow the general guidelines which have guided good journalism since it began:
afflict the comfortable, and comfort the afflicted...
but this lionizing of the 1% as the ultimate expression of WORSHIPPED kapitalist imperialism, is SICK, in a perverted sense that SHOULD make all right-thinking people recoil in disgust, rather than hope to be like them...
SUPPOSEDLY, 'our' (sic) small dee democracy is ABSOLUTELY dependent upon the free and unfettered flow of information, and transparent oversight of ALL gummint, in order to make fully informed decisions/votes...
is there ANY part of that we have available to us now ? ? ?
on ANY level ? ? ?
how does this korporate-sponsored 'journalism' square itself with those basic principles for the survival of small-dee democracy...
well, it doesn't, does it ?
and
THAT is the fucking plan, isn't it ?
and
The They (tm) have the money, power and influence to enforce that, and we ain't got shit...
and
power NEVER devolves voluntarily...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by darnkitten on Friday May 06 2016, @01:46AM
I normally don't do this, but...
Could you please reformat your post with an eye to readability?
In its present form, it comes off as so much visual cacophony. I'm sure it makes good points, but I am having difficulty getting more than a sense of anger/outrage and the occasional keyword out of it, and I suspect most people will skip it, rather than attempt to decode the message.
Your shorter posts are easier to navigate, and read more like free verse. :)
Thanks!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @01:00PM
it probably doesn't make any good points because the first sentence makes it clear the author's sarcasm detector functions are impaired