I beg your pardon

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Feb 03, 2003 8:24 am

Following a vociferous e-mail protest campaign from many thousands of people, Maxim magazine issued a carefully-worded apology for an article in its February issue that depicted Mahatma Gandhi being beaten, kicked and bloodied, in a fitness feature. "We apologize if our cartoon depicting Mahatma Gandhi in the February 2003 issue of Maxim was interpreted as offensive," said editor-in-chief Keith Blanchard's apology, which characterised the three-page feature and its 23 computer-generated color illustrations as a 'cartoon'. "An edgy sense of humour, laced with irony, has always been a central element of Maxim's editorial," Blanchard's note continued. "For some people, this piece may have gone one step too far.""We at Maxim do, in fact, believe in Gandhi's teachings of peace. In fact, we chose Gandhi as the subject of our workout cartoon specifically because he is the least likely target of aggression imaginable. No offense was intended to anyone," the apology said putting an interesting spin on why it chose Gandhi for the feature. (Rediff.com)***Oh, come on. Maxim, of course, is not a journalistic enterprise, but this nonstop wave of contrition over everything that someone, somewhere, objects to has got to stop. Some publications, of course, are "offensive" to attract attention ( which Maxim, I understand, often is), but most editorial apologies are unnecessary and usually issued just to shut up oversensitive complainers. Let what you publish speak for itself. If you make an error, correct it forthrightly, Don't apologize. No one really believes you're sorry anyhow.***[ February 03, 2003: Message edited by: blanp ]

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:25 pm

I am puzzled. How did people who are easily offended come to find themselves deep into the pages of Maxim magazine?There should have been no apology at all. But if for some reason, like having their ears twisted by a major advertiser, Maxim editors felt a need to apologize, do it in brief form and get it over with.This bloated apology is embarrassing.[ February 03, 2003: Message edited by: Bumfketeer ]

dmfugitive · **Posted:** Mon Feb 03, 2003 1:22 pm

"In fact, we chose Gandhi as the subject of our workout cartoon specifically because he is the least likely target of aggression imaginable."Tell that to the guy who assassinated him.

rumymommy · **Joined:** Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 138

When it rains...
MTV apologized to the people of India on
Friday for offending them with a "horny" animated sitcom character named
"Gandhi" who is supposed to be a clone of the slain independence leader. The apology comes after protests in India over the character on the MTV
show "Clone High, USA," in which a fictional high school is populated by
clones of historic figures, including Joan of Arc and assassinated U.S.
Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. "MTV US apologizes if we have offended the people of India and the memory
of Mahatma Gandhi," MTV said in the statement. "We have the utmost
respect for Gandhi and all he represents as a revered Indian leader and one
of the most important figures in world history."

Bakelite · **Posted:** Mon Feb 03, 2003 6:05 pm

There is a place for corrections of errors of judgement, in addition to corrections of errors of fact.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Mon Feb 03, 2003 6:38 pm

OK, Dean; I'll buy that for a dollar. But they should have thrown a towel over it after the first graf.

Bakelite · **Posted:** Mon Feb 03, 2003 8:29 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Bumfketeer:
OK, Dean; I'll buy that for a dollar. But they should have thrown a towel over it after the first graf.<hr></blockquote>Agreed. And it would be helpful if they actually meant it.***Duluth, bucko? You can get Tierra Del Fuego!***[ February 03, 2003: Message edited by: Dean Betz ]

jbm · **Posted:** Tue Feb 04, 2003 7:20 pm

Then there's the newspaper in my conservative West Texas hometown, which recently went on the defensive after it ran a features story about PFLAG. The editor wrote a lengthy piece on the Sunday op-ed page in response to angry letters accusing the paper of promoting "the homosexual agenda." In it, the editor, in a patronizing tone, explained the difference between features stories, news stories and editorials, and explained the paper's "mission" to cover every part of the community, etc. I wish I could give you a link to it, but the paper's Web site is deficient in the archives area.This looks completely amateurish to me. Why respond at all to this type of criticism, much less write a high-profile defense of a story that does not need defending?

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 12:52 pm

Patronizing indeed. Readers who are too stupid or too blinded by biases to understand the difference between the parts of a newspaper are not going to read such a column anyway.And lest we forget, the "mission" of a newspaper is to make money, whether we like it or not.

catwoman · **Posted:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 3:49 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by dmfugitive:
"In fact, we chose Gandhi as the subject of our workout cartoon specifically because he is the least likely target of aggression imaginable."Tell that to the guy who assassinated him.<hr></blockquote>adding insult to assassination:
our competition's junior edition, the one that aims to print only hip-but-one-syllable words for the 18- to 34-year-old crowd, took the dumbing down a bit too far today:
"Ghandi clone makes enemies"

Testy Copy Editors

I beg your pardon

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links