I just don't understand The Daily Advertiser sometimes.
For those of you in different zip codes, The Daily Advertiser is the newspaper of my home base here in Lafayette, Louisiana. Despite writing for The Advocate, I always pick up The Advertiser. I don't know why. I guess I like its format, or maybe it's just lifelong habit. I also have friends that work there.
I have so many horror stories about mistakes, inconsistencies and just plain bad judgment over the years that I should open yet another new blog just to list them (I've related a few throughout recent Advertiser-related posts at timshel).
Where to start? A few years ago, the Advertiser ran a vehement apology for the content of a particular page in the previous day's issue. Ever the investigative (not to mention the pack-rat) type, I took out that day's paper. On the page was a full-page ad for a female sexual cream. It promised "Better and Longer-Lasting Orgasms!" Oh dear!! Somebody call the sex police! The kids might actually find out where they came from!
The precedent had been established around 1997. That year, the paper decided that, bowing to reader pressure, they would no longer run Doonesbury on the comics page. They said that the strip was too politically provocative in content, and therefore more appropriate for the editorials page. Of course, they didn't address the elephant in the room (or the page)--that Mallard Fillmore, the poorly-drawn strip higlighting a conservative-reporter duck and the most stereotypically stupid liberals in the world, was allowed to remain on the comics page. Ah, sweet double standard. They finally put both strips together on the editorial page after another round of letters from readers sick of the hypocrisy.
The latest kink in this frayed hose of hypersensitivity is The Advertiser's refusal to run Saturday's Doonesbury strip. They called it offensive, and instead ran a "classic" strip. But was it offensive? Read it for yourself:
Even if that is offensive (and it very well might be to those who know nothing of Cheney's remark or those who can understand Doonesbury yet have never heard a curse word), it's not that far off from the salacious imagery offered by the new strip it did run, Saturday's Mallard Fillmore:
Mallard Fillmore 10/30/04
"Fat, Hairy Men in Women's Clothing," eh? Hmm...that's not offensive to the sensibilities of the average American! Why, that's more than words--that's a mental picture! Ewww...thanks a lot, Bruce!
Until The Daily Advertiser stops being so squeamish about what they run, and until they clean up obvious errors, I will continue to scratch my head and ask, "Why even bother?"