As an example of a fairly common occurrence, here's that same panel from December 22nd: third time's the charm (hopefully): a slight change to the caption verbage so as to clarify an assumption that it's specifically referring to the on-line website comment threads. I'd argue that most folks already know, but at some point it's prudent to take the suggestions from an editor. Especially if you want to see it printed and get paid, and it isn't a big sacrifice. Though I did make one other minor change to one of the trees...
Besides, the irony is in that the two audiences probably don't overlap much - the schmucks I'm making fun of won't ever see this panel.
Continuing the theme that editorial cartoonists were the print-only forerunner of the internet troll. Except hopefully a bit more talented, and with an editor. "Trolls crave attention, and they care not whether it is positive or negative. They see the Internet as a mirror into which they can gaze in narcissistic rapture."
Casual perusal of these comment threads on on-line newspapers shows a pattern of habitual users that show up and piss all over everything and everyone, regardless of what the subject is - but some particular topics tend to attract more virulent and stereotyping responses far more than others.
The editor made a command decision that this panel didn't need the extraneous verbage, which of course baffles me since I thought everyone looks at the entire world through the eyes of an editorial cartoonist and consequently understands my point of view. Not. Nevermind. Next.