Ambush at the PNJ “Corral”

My "Interview" with the 2-person editorial board of the Pensacola News Journal today felt like a total ambush job...read about it below.

My Spidey Sense was telling me something was amiss…  This is/was the first time I have ever been asked to sit down and talk with the entire two-person editorial board of the PNJ.  And what did I do to elicit this invitation?  Well, as I have done dozens of times over the last 13 years, I had emailed in an op-ed for the PNJ’s consideration.  Here is the 600 word guest editorial I sent them on Wednesday evening.

But instead of a yes or no (or pocket veto)—I was asked to come sit down and talk to the two-person editorial board (+Jim Little was brought in as well) earlier today.

Immediately, I was attacked by Andy Marlette.  He had an almost rabid look in his eyes as he began questioning me on a host of topics the second I sat down in the conference room and editor Lisa Savage joined us…

“You wrote on your blog for years that I called you and told you to stop making parody manipulations of my cartoons—but that isn’t true—I never called you!”  he said accusingly.  I told him that Jeremy Knipper from the PNJ called on his behalf and said “Andy doesn’t like you using his cartoons--stop”  Which is a fact.  So yes, there is a distinction; Andy told Jeremy Knipper to call me on his behalf to say I couldn’t use his cartoons.  It is a distinction with no difference.  Nevertheless, I said to Andy’s representative at that time--“you’ve got that wrong, go ask your attorneys.”  And Jeremy called back later to say “Yeah, you can use them.”  Andy didn’t like that part of today’s meeting, I guess….

He then looked over to his editor, in almost a tattle-tale whine, and said “He is taking my cartoons and changing them around and changing the words!”  and he continued “I don’t think it is legal, It’s not legal for him to do this, right?!?”  The editor responded to me “I don’t think you can do that, but we will check, I’ll ask Barbara about this.”  (I assumed this is their lawyer).  I simply stated the cartoons I manipulated were a parody, clearly marked and subject to fair use as such, and that I continue to believe it is legal to utilize them for parody.  (They will probably reach out to a senior attorney within their Gannett organization, probably a sharp conservative lawyer, and they will get their answer which will probably not align with what they think the answer should be, I suspect.)

Meanwhile—the question barrage was about to begin.

Andy started a series of rapid-fire questions.  “What do you think about the small number of minorities in leadership in the county?”  “What do you think should be done about this?”  What do you think I meant when I drew your last name next to a confederate rebel flag in multiple cartoons?”  “Why do you NOT think Senator Philip Beall was a racist?”  “Who said Philip Beall was a white-supremacist?” “Do you blog anonymously?” “Are you homophobic?”

I felt like I was being grilled.  A few times he busted out in an almost nervous bout of laughter.  It was weird.

“Why can’t you tell us about all the important legislation that Senator Beall sponsored while he was in the senate for 7 years?”  (I guess they thought I ought to be able to regurgitate his legislative record on command, on the spot, from memory?)

“None of Beall’s family live in the area any more—what do you make of that?”

“Why should we keep the Beall name on the Bridge—what does it matter?”

I took their gunfire and answered their questions for an hour.  I don’t think they liked my answers or the fact that I would not answer some of the questions the way they wanted me to answer them.  They did not like the fact that I pushed back against their line of questioning and held fast and stood up to them.  Here are some examples of their questions and my answers:

Jeff Bergosh:  “Andy—what did you think of the first bridge committee meeting”

Andy Marlette:  “I don’t know”

Jeff Bergosh: “You were there—what do you mean you don’t know?”

Andy Marlette:  “I guess it just seemed disorganized and not productive”

Jeff Bergosh:  “What do you mean? The elected a chair, set the meeting dates, decided upon goals and objectives, and the format for the meetings—I think they accomplished a lot!”

Andy Marlette:  “What does the “American Grizzly” and “Bear Magazine ”in your version of my

cartoon mean? 

Jeff Bergosh:  “I don’t really know, except people have said they think it would be funny because you probably like those magazines and probably read those magazines.” (Andy didn’t like that answer)

Andy Marlette:  “Who said that?!?” 

Jeff Bergosh:  “I’m not going to tell you—why would I?”

Andy Marlette:  “Tell us your thoughts on homosexuality”?

Jeff Bergosh:  “I’m not homophobic-it that’s what you mean.  I am a straight man, a Catholic that attends a Baptist Church and I have my personal religious beliefs on multiple subjects—which I’ll not be discussing here with you—you’re trying to bait me” (I’m surprised they didn’t try to grill me on my view of abortion—they must have forgot to ask….)

Lisa Savage threw this in:  “I’m a Catholic, too” 

Andy Marlette:  “In another cartoon you have me saying ‘on the bottom again’—what does that mean?”

Jeff Bergosh:  “Andy—look at the context, you were being squashed in that cartoon, you were on the bottom of a monster character—hello?” (I guess he thought that was a homophobic shot or something…interesting)

(Jim Little sat quietly for the whole interview/interrogation-he didn’t ask one question or say one thing, it was kind of weird)

Interestingly—the assembled panel had no interest whatsoever in answering any questions I put back to them, they would quickly cut me off or change the subject.  They didn’t want to talk about Andrew Jackson and his ownership of slaves or killing of Indians, NOPE.  Didn’t want to talk about it.  FDR and segregation of Black Troops?  Nope, no discussion of that whatsoever. Double standard as it pertains to Beall juxtaposed with Robert Byrd or other historical figures that mistreated minorities?  Nope, “we’re not talking about that!” was their refrain-they only wanted to ambush me and bait me into answering loaded questions so Andy could do more cartoons of me.  It was surreal.  A total ambush job.

I was VERY surprised at how mad Andy was though….  Very thin-skinned.  He was not happy about the cartoons I did of him.  Interesting that he, as a public figure, can dish it out but he is apparently OUTRAGED that someone would have the audacity to respond in kind.  Very surprising how angry and agitated he was.  And the outrage about his perception that a depiction of him that he found “homophobic” was just reprehensible ------was rich.  This coming from the guy who drew our President in bed with Vladimir Putin in one cartoon, and in another he drew our president kissing Putin’s naked buttocks.  Talk about a hypocritical double standard??  Parody is parody—I’d have thought Andy understood this.  I guess only OTHER people are fair game, and NOT him!  LOL.

The Good news—Lisa Savage said she is going to print my viewpoint on Tuesday—even though I got the sense Andy did not want it printed!  Yay!!

Be that as it may--I’m sure they (PNJ) are still going to target me with a hit piece over this “interview/ambush”—and probably do some cartoons of me too, as soon as they are done with their assault on Mike Hill, Trump, and other conservative Republicans.

That’s okay though.  Unlike Andy, I’m a public figure that has thick skin and I can take it.  And I’ll take whatever he draws about me and I’ll manipulate it to make it better---and funnier!! J