LONG ISLAND, NY – Newsday has issued an apology and removed a political cartoon from its platforms following widespread criticism that the image was offensive in light of the recent assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.
The cartoon, created by syndicated editorial cartoonist Chip Bok, depicted an empty chair labeled with Kirk’s name beneath a tent for Turning Point USA. The chair was drawn with bloodstains and accompanied by the phrase “Prove Me Wrong.” The illustration appeared in the Saturday print edition and was briefly featured online before being taken down.
The cartoon’s publication quickly generated backlash from readers and political figures across Long Island and beyond. Critics argued that the imagery trivialized or mocked Kirk’s death, and calls for boycotts of the newspaper and its advertisers soon followed. In response, Newsday acknowledged the decision to run the cartoon as an error in judgment and confirmed its removal from digital platforms.
The incident has also raised questions about oversight in the editorial process. While Newsday has expressed regret to readers, pressure remains from some groups for further accountability, including terminating relationships with the cartoonist. Chip Bok, the artist, has defended the intent of his work, though the paper itself has distanced from the content.
Additional Publication in Wyoming
The controversy over the cartoon was not limited to New York. The Jackson Hole News & Guide in Wyoming also published the same syndicated cartoon in its weekend edition. After receiving strong reader feedback that the imagery was upsetting and inappropriate, the paper removed the cartoon from its digital platform and issued a public note of regret.
Unlike Newsday, the Jackson Hole outlet did not face widespread boycott calls or national attention. The backlash there remained more localized, with criticism largely coming from community readers rather than political leaders or advertisers. The paper’s ownership stated that the incident would prompt a review of editorial review procedures, underscoring how smaller outlets can also face difficult decisions in balancing syndicated content with community standards.
Key Facts
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| What Happened | Newsday published a Chip Bok political cartoon depicting Charlie Kirk’s empty, bloodstained chair labeled “Turning Point USA” with the phrase “Prove Me Wrong.” |
| Why It Was Controversial | The cartoon appeared shortly after Kirk’s assassination and was widely seen as offensive and insensitive. |
| Newsday’s Response | Cartoon removed from digital platforms; apology issued calling publication an error in judgment. |
| Backlash | Heavy criticism from readers and political figures on Long Island; boycott calls targeted at the paper and advertisers. |
| Other Outlet Involved | Jackson Hole News & Guide (Wyoming) also ran the cartoon, later removed it online, and apologized. |
| Difference in Reactions | Newsday faced large-scale national scrutiny and boycott calls; Jackson Hole backlash was mostly local and limited to community criticism. |
| Cartoonist | Chip Bok, a syndicated editorial cartoonist, defended his intent but both outlets distanced themselves from the work. |
Q&A
Q: Why was the cartoon considered offensive?
A: It appeared to mock or trivialize Charlie Kirk’s assassination by showing his chair bloodstained and empty, which many readers viewed as crossing a line of taste and sensitivity.
Q: Did Newsday remove the cartoon?
A: Yes. Newsday pulled it from its website and digital platforms and issued a formal apology acknowledging the decision as an error.
Q: Was Newsday the only outlet to publish it?
A: No. The Jackson Hole News & Guide in Wyoming also ran the cartoon in its weekend editorial section but faced far less public backlash.
Q: How did the Wyoming paper respond?
A: They removed the cartoon from their online edition, issued a note of regret to readers, and said they would review internal editorial processes going forward.
Q: What is the broader significance of this incident?
A: The controversy highlights the fine line editorial cartoonists and newspapers face between satire and offense, particularly when tied to political violence. It also shows how local versus national media can experience very different levels of scrutiny for publishing the same syndicated content.
