[Guest post by DRJ]

The Politico’s Michael Calderone reports the Washington Post is still running a controversial Pat Oliphant cartoon online but not in its print version.

The September 9, 2008, Oliphant cartoon shows Sarah Palin speaking in tongues as McCain reassures us that she has a “direct line to the Almighty.” Meanwhile, God is complaining to Peter that his phone connection is crossed with “some dam’ right wing politician spouting gibberish.”

After receiving hundreds of complaints, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell responded:

“McCain and Palin are certainly fair game, but most of those offended by the cartoon felt it mocked all Pentecostals. Most cartoonists don’t go out of their way to lambaste religion. But the pope is a frequent editorial cartoon character, as are God and St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.
***
Most complainers thought that the Oliphant cartoon appeared in print. It didn’t. I showed it to several Post editors. While it was clever in some ways, most editors — including me — would not have run it. The Post has a policy against defaming or perpetuating racial, religious or ethnic stereotypes. That was why The Post did not run the Danish cartoons about the prophet Muhammad.”

So it’s fine to “defame or perpetuate stereotypes online” as long as you don’t do so in print? Cool.

The Washington Post obviously can’t run everything in print that it runs online due to space constraints, but it should be willing to run in print whatever it runs online. Either a publication is appropriate or it’s not, and if it isn’t then it shouldn’t be run anywhere.

Pat Oliphant probably knows his employer’s standards and motivations better than most, and he said he wasn’t surprised that it didn’t run in print because “Many publications are too timid” to run some of his work. Thus, it looks like the Washington Post is afraid to risk losing print subscriptions because of these cartoons, but it’s willing to facilitate inflammatory rhetoric against McCain-Palin online.

The Washington Post cultivates its image as a brave watchdog that investigates wrongdoing. In this case, it’s shown itself to be a very timid watchdog.

EDIT: I think the Post should apply its standards uniformly but, according to its ombudsman, it didn’t do that here. [Further Edit: In the comments, Charlie from Colorado indicates the Post has different standards for its print and online publications. — DRJ] Nevertheless, this cartoon doesn’t bother me and I think it should have been published in print and online. The Danish cartoons should have been published, too. What bothers me about this story is that the Post wants to publish selectively to avoid consequences.

— DRJ