It is said that a society's worth can be measured by the amount of cartoon butts it leaves exposed.
If that old maxim is true, then we're living in a golden age.
In tomorrow's edition of the Arts and Leisure section, The New York Times joins Fox News in its journalistic disregard for accuracy in the coverage of the cartoon buttocks issue.
You may recall that in January, Fox television executives were compelled by the FCC's indecency crackdown to pixillate the exposed butt of Stew, a cartoon character on the animated Fox series The Family Guy. 
In the February 20 edition of the New York Times Arts and Leisure section, page 32 contains a full page photo-essay about MTV's promotional spots and imagery. In the image above, you can see the MTV images which The Times reprinted, with the caption:
"This on-air promotion used simple animation and graphics to parody sexual stereotypes."
But a Times editor apparently found the hand-on-butt action too saucy for the cover of Arts and Leisure, so they ran with a screenshot which leaves hand and butt romantically unattached. The meaning that is so clear on page 32, which is even funny (fulfilling The New York Times humor quotient until April, 2006), is completely lost. But at least nobody can accuse The Times of promoting the gay agenda!
At least Fox has the FCC to answer to. What's the old grey lady's excuse? Why is it OK to run gay marriage announcements, but it's not OK to show clearly non-gay cartoon characters (the baseball players), expressing sportsmanlike camaraderie in a realistic fashion? At least on the front page of Section Two, anyway.
UPDATE: I corrected this post to reflect the fact that The Times did not in fact airbrush the images on page 32, but rather used a different screenshot from the MTV animation in order to protect society from the North American Cartoon Hand-Butt Love Association.
haha...
either way, straight/gay the cover guy on the left, with his awkward stance (it's like he's dragging his right leg) & poor posture looks kinda "special".
nice find ken. i may have to buy tomorrow's ny times. excellent bad art damage.
Posted by: jeff | February 19, 2005 at 02:28 PM
What's the FCC going to do when baseball season starts, and all the crotch scratching begins?
Posted by: Chris J | February 19, 2005 at 03:25 PM
The commercial is actually an animation in which the man on the left walks up to the man on the right, touches his ass then pauses for the reaction. So what we are seeing here is not photoshoped, it's simply a screen capture of the ass touching reaction. The first image is a screen capture of the touching in progress. That being said it is still a lame choice to show the reaction instead of the hot hand-on-ass action.
The ad can be seen here: http://www.boardsmag.com/screeningroom/commercials/761/
Posted by: Jeff T | February 19, 2005 at 04:51 PM
What are they going to do for diaper commercials? Are baby butts threatening to the fragile psyche of our children as well?
Posted by: Rob S. | February 19, 2005 at 05:04 PM
Thanks for the correction, Jeff. I updated my post to reflect the reality based community.
Posted by: Station Manager Ken | February 19, 2005 at 05:59 PM
Hinlarious. I was just showing this to my wife on Sunday. Without the hand on the butt, the meaning is lost - it just looks like the guy on the left is threatening the other dude. What's the point? Only baseball managers can talk sternly without being gay?
Posted by: S.S. Eye | February 22, 2005 at 12:06 PM
Before reading this, I saw the first photo, thought: thats funny becuase of how true it is. Then saw the second one and thought: thats hilarious.
Then I read it, felt the same about the first but the second, I felt as if it was horrible that picture was shown out of context to so many people who may have saw it and thought: "it just looks like the guy on the left is threatening the other dude. What's the point? Only baseball managers can talk sternly without being gay?"- to quote S.S. Eve who put it perfectly.
Posted by: Ed Word | February 22, 2005 at 06:42 PM
Hey, this topic is dead, maybe, but I gotta ask the question that's been on my mind since I was in Little League:
Why do sports guys pat each other's butts so much?
Posted by: Listener John | May 14, 2005 at 04:42 PM
A pat on the rear is always a positive jesture. Those who don't pat or refuse to be patted are uncomfortable about their sexuality.
Posted by: Jon Kinder | August 24, 2007 at 09:35 PM
i dunno. sometimes i have a hard time touching my own butt.
thank god the shower hides my crying eyes.
Posted by: zombot | January 30, 2008 at 04:55 PM