Newsday, Jackson Hole, and local politicians show how quickly the balance between free speech, responsibility, and censorship tips.
By Jaci Clement, CEO/Executive Director, Fair Media Council
Question one: If you were to name the biggest news story in America last week, 
what would it be? Most likely, Charlie Kirk would top the list.
Question two: If your job was to pick an editorial cartoon representing the biggest news of the week, what would you choose? And if your answer to question one was Kirk, would that also be your answer here?
That’s the editorial dilemma that was in play in news outlets around the country: choosing what to depict as the week’s dominant story. The choice itself has consequences: What topic you choose to depict is as much a statement as what you don’t.
Many news outlets ran cartoons about Kirk, but from what I could find, only two ran the same cartoon by Chip Bok: Newsday and the Jackson Hole News & Guide in Wyoming.
Both later apologized and removed the cartoon. But unlike the Wyoming paper, Newsday landed in national headlines for it.
Here’s the backstory: After publication, local politicians loudly demanded action—ranging from taking the cartoon down, to apologizing, firing the editor, firing the cartoonist, and even boycotting the paper.
There’s a lot to unpack. First, Newsday did the wrong thing, and then the right thing. Running a cartoon on Kirk—given he was the week’s biggest story—was standard editorial practice. The mistake was choosing that particular cartoon. Then came the apology, which read more like a typical news outlet non-apology apology —and it was buried at the bottom of an inside page of the news section. The newsroom did the editorial board (a separate division) no favors with that placement.
From the public’s point of view, an apology from a news outlet should be considered major news. I’ll leave that there.
The miscalculation on the first apology forced a second apology: more detailed, more visible.
Comparatively, Jackson Hole’s apology was more in step with today’s standards.
From a watchdog perspective, the key is that the paper was responsive. That matters. Also notable: the first apology carried the name of the editorial page editor—a show of accountability that’s increasingly rare in an era when people are quick to fear retribution. The second apology, by contrast, was signed by “Newsday Leadership.”
Editorial boards exist to speak truth to power to institutions. The truth about editorial boards is they are institutions.
Meanwhile, the politicians who demanded the retraction went ahead and published the cartoon with their comments on social platforms. Which begs the question: Why amplify what you demand others suppress, if your claim is that it causes pain or incites violence?
So here we are again: First, politicians doing the right thing. Then, they did the wrong thing. Calling out the cartoon’s poor choice was fair. But the pile-on of demands—retraction, firings, boycotts—crossed the line into censorship.
Invoking censorship may win a battle of headlines, but it does nothing to reckon with the larger consequences.
The cartoonist, for his part, stood firm, framing it as free speech: “Here’s my apology: I’m sorry Charlie Kirk isn’t around to give these guys a free speech lesson.”
But free speech is only half of the equation. The other half is leadership—leadership that understands words and images have impact and consequences. There are many ways to tell a story or draw a cartoon. Pretending otherwise is irresponsible. And in all the coverage and outrage that news and media bring us today, that’s the lesson missing.