One of the joys I had as editor of the TAB was going into my inbox on Mondays and opening Mark Marderosian’s editorial cartoon. Even these past couple months since leaving, his artwork on the opinion page was always one of the first items I’d look for.
Mind you, I more often than not disagreed with Mark’s take on the issues, which in recent years have been heavily focused on the citywide debate over development. Nevertheless, I almost always had a good chuckle while reading them and appreciated his community spirit.
Sadly, Mark’s most recent cartoon for the TAB was rejected by the editors there. He told me they thought it could be taken as “sexist.” I don’t really see it that way and so we will publish it here. (For those of you wondering, the woman in the middle is supposed to be our fine mayor and the caller on the line is developer Robert Korff. The cartoon is linked below.)
Mark Marderosian, a Newton native, had been creating cartoons for the TAB for more than a decade. He told me today it would be the last one he will create for the paper (though I’m hopeful if he is inspired and has the time he might create a few special editions for V14 in the future).
What a shame! Our new administration has discouraged open debate regarding development on Washington St. Last week’s meeting at Second Church with the Planning Dept. and the Principle Group forbade an open public question and answer
period. The public was most worried about all the new plans.
None were allowed to ask direct questions to the mayor.
This attempt to stifle Mark’s cartoon is unfair.
@Colleene: Huh? Did a recreational marijuana shop open near your house and no one told me? Asking because there does not seem to be any other possible explanation for how someone could come to the conclusion that the mayor is behind the TABs decision not to run this cartoon.
Not only that but the event everyone but apparently you attended last week seemed to be doing plenty of talking and the mayor stayed to talk to folks until the very end.
I will miss Mark’s artistry and take on Newton’s political moment of the day. I have always enjoyed his work. This is one of the funniest one’s yet. Nothing sexist. Nothing rude. Nothing even serious to debate. Its funny as if it was a skit on the Daily show. It is difficult in these bizarre national political times to keep our sense of humor. Lets never loose that……. The fact that this was nixed by gatehouse is the real story here. Too much to comment on that insane decision and the overall issue of an editorial staff sitting in Texas making decisions on local “journalism”…….
Brainstorming ideas for cartoons with Mark on Friday afternoons was one of the joys of being editor of the Newton TAB. I will miss his artistry and humor.
My thanks to Andy for writing this and V14 for posting it. After over a decade of writing and drawing the editorial cartoons for the TAB, I’m sorry it has come to a stop. The writing of these cartoons actually involved more time than the drawing since I took the responsibility of commenting on people’s actions and events very seriously. Former editors Gail, Emily, and Andy always respected my work even if they disagreed. God bless them, they even shared in the heat and anger that would be returned by readers on occasion.
Appearing in the Newton Tab has been an honor. I’ll miss it. I loved both the bouquets and brickbats. Among many nice letters I received over the years was an email from a Chinese dissident who requested copies of various cartoons that criticized the Mayor. He sent the cartoons back home to show his former neighbors that in this country, one can criticize those in power without being shot or shot down.
The degree of attention and caring by readers was very much appreciated and will be held by me forever.
I am sorry to hear Mark Marderosian’s cartoons will be gone. They were one of the TAB’s best features.
This question has now been firmly answered: Is Gatehouse ‘saving small town journalism or eviscerating it’? Eviscerating.
Mark, I’m sorry to see your cartoons go. This one is really funny as are most whether I agree with them or not.
Gatehouse is way off base calling this cartoon sexist – unless they think having a woman mayor is reverse sexism. When decisions are made in Texas about MA, the reasoning can be dubious.
Honestly, before reading the post and learning why the Tab declined to run the cartoon, my reaction to calling the mayor of Newton a “spokesmodel” was that I wouldn’t do it. I’m also not sure such a thing would have been written about a male mayor.
Which is not to say I believe there was sexist intent. I imagine Marc was just mimicking what really happens on QVC. But we need to be more thoughtful about the messages our words send.
I don’t see why they couldn’t run it reading simply, “Here’s Ruthanne to tell us more.”
Sorry for misspelling “Mark”
Like Andy, I often disagreed with Mark’s views. The latest example is his take on the ridiculous notion of a north side vs. south side rivalry in Newton. Nevertheless, I appreciate the time and effort he has put into this enterprise. I’m surprised to learn that the new Tab management has actually taken the time to look at the content they publish.
Newtoner – you don’t think there’s a north side vs south side issue in Newton?
Newtoner – Did you just move here?
In some political circles the North-South issue exists, but I don’t think the vast majority of our almost 90,000 residents think about it all that much.
… and don’t get me going on the Upper/Lower Falls thing
I wouldn’t call it a rivalry – meaning both the north and south sides of Newton share the feeling they are in competition. It’s more the north side, which seems to only consist of a few residents in Newtonville, choosing to shout out their perceived victimization by the south side, defined loosely as Waban and Chestnut Hill.
I wouldn’t call it a “rivalry” in the sense of a sports rivalry where one side is trying to defeat the other – maybe more like a sibling rivalry, where two children feel like they are competing for a finite set of resources, and are quick to perceive that the other sibling is being favored in some way. But to me, the idea that a North-South tension doesn’t exist, or that it exists only in a political sense, or among “a few residents of Newtonville” is just… I don’t know… kind of ludicrous.
It’s much larger than a few residents in Newtonville. Talk to anyone from the Northside that’s involved in their PTO about equity among the schools. I wouldn’t call it a rivalry so much as a disparity.
@Mary Mary Quite Contrary: Where does the school discrimination begin? Is it the Mass Pike or Comm Ave? It’s important to know, because there’s a $200M school right in between.
MMQC each PTO files an equity report each year which was ideally to bring to light any disparities. In the past I’m not sure much was done with this information. NPS now currently has a tagline of equity and equality so hopefully more focus is going towards addressing this issue. A few SC members (Margaret Albright comes to mind) when running for election have mentioned their focus on equity. In the past for technology before it was covered under equity it was understood that if PTOs purchased equipment then the NPS technology funds would then be used to provide equipment to schools that could not fund it. Thus the PTO fundraising in this area freed up money for the other schools. NPS also owns the equipment even though the PTOs purchased it. I think the real disparity now is the new schools (though both currently south side..Cabot will be there soon enough and then HM to Carr and LE to Aquinas will equalize the N/S aspect) have technology and other upgrades built in which compared to any of the other schools creates a huge inequity.
MMQC didn’t say discrimination, she said disparity, and it mostly shows up at the elementary level. The disparity is in PTO fundraising; in general, elementary schools with more affluent demographics can raise lots of money in not a lot of time, so when there are needs that don’t fall under the equity policy (like playgrounds and technology) they can be fulfilled pretty quickly. For schools with less affluent demographics, like many north side elementary schools, that kind of fundraising takes many, many years – if it’s even possible – so technology can lag behind and playgrounds go unrepaired.
Exactly, Tricia. I wasn’t even talking about the technology equity cap, I was talking about equity in a much broader sense.
Tricia, some of the best playgrounds in Newton are at the northern elementary schools. I have lived on both “sides” of Newton, and I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Newtoner – here’s an example. In the early 1990s, Burr School parents raised money for and installed new playground equipment that involved lots of large, interconnected wooden structures which were “the thing” at the time. It was awesome, and the kids loved it, but after 20 years or so, it reached the end of the line – it could no longer be repaired, and there was no money available from the city for replacement. The PTO started fundraising for the $100,000+ required for the project, but it literally took SEVERAL YEARS to raise the money (during which time the city continued to remove sections of the old one as they were deemed unsafe. ) Other PTOs have been able to raise that kind of money at a single event, which means that their schools don’t go for years with failing or missing playground equipment.
Tricia – FYI Technology is now covered under the Equity Policy (revised in 2014). NPS has set a technology standard and worked to bring each school up to that standard. I do not know the current state, but 2 yrs ago all elementary schools were considered at standard. Under Eileen Keane, Director of IT NPS has worked to implement certain objectives each year across the shcool system so taht might be providing 4 iPads to each K classroom or something like that thus each school receives an equal benefit (if the PTO has already fulfilled this need then they don’t get the equipment). The methodology of the IT Dept spending is much better than it was in the past. There is an effort to implement grade wide solutions city wide which is beneficial from an equity stand point but also a staff training/sharing of best practices stand point.
As far as playgrounds which are the largest expense not covered by the Equity Policy, the city is supposed to be responsible for maintaining playgrounds. There was a push underway to get them to provide more funds for building new playgrounds about 3 or 4 years ago. From what I last heard the meetings that the PTOs and the PTOC tried to have with Parks and Recs just died but not for lack of effort of the PTOs part.
My earlier point was more that the new schools being built come with the technology, cafeterias and playgrounds etc. I believe Angier’s playground was moved (a good condition playground) and left at Carr but both the new Angier and Zervas received new playgrounds. I would assume that will be the case for Cabot etc. Eventually it won’t be so much of a N/S split but rather a new/old school as the facilities part of the equation will help. Some of the North schools (Horace Mann, Lincoln Elliot) will be in a much better place when they move to new facilities as improvements get bundled into the cost of the projects of upgrading the facilities. Unfortunately the whole system got hurt by the amount of money spent on Newton North. Too many schools were not maintained and the city is way behind in addressing the condition of facilities.
Fundraising is about means and desire to give. I’m not sure how we address the means aspect that unless the city itself picks up the slack.
MMQC/Tricia any ideas on how to address this disparity or are you just mentioning in the context of how people feel there is a divide?
I just brought it up in response to one reason why people feel there’s a divide. I wish I had some realistic ideas of how to address the disparity, but I think that the fact of the matter is that different communities are able to raise different amounts of funds. And I do agree that there will be a divide between the new and the old facilities, but even once there’s a new Lincoln-Eliot they’re still not going to be able to compete with a school like Mason-Rice in terms of fundraising.
Tricia – Playgrounds are a huge investment. They have a lifetime of about 15 years . I don’t think many schools would have the ability to raise those funds “easily”. My kids went to a south side school where we had a similar situation to Burr where the City was removing the pieces of our playground due to decay and it was becoming less and less functional. I remember my youngest hanging upside down by her skirt caught on a nail from the wooden structure. Though we may not have taken several years to do it, it wasn’t an easy road raising the funds. We did use funds set aside from multiple years knowing we were going to have to address the issue. In following this area I would say there has been one outlier school which did raise an huge amount in a short time which if you use the Mass Pike divider would be South but they feed into North. I’m not sure any of the other schools that I know who did playground projects would say it wasn’t tough.
I was shocked after moving to Newton and found that the money for building/replacing playgrounds was not a city responsibility.
I know. It’s surprising to know that even if there’s a part of the playground that’s a safety hazard, the PTO needs to raise money for it! Annnd even seemingly small tasks are way more expensive than I could have imagined.
I worked on my kids’ school playground project and actually got concrete donated by Quik Crete out of NH. One of the comments I got from the Rep when asking for the donation was “isn’t Newton where that really expensive high school is?”. I had to explain yes it is but that there were many things including playgrounds which the City did not fund.
I think some of the things the City does not fund are surprising to people.
The TAB has an editor? Who knew?