Your June 26, 2022 Dilbert Sunday Funny … or Not – updated

It seems Andrews McMeel Syndication has offered a replacement strip for those newspapers uncomfortable with publishing the Dilbert comic strip Scott Adams had created for June 26, 2022.

Here is the Dilbert strip Stars and Stripes ran in their weekend edition:

That is a rerun of the June 25, 2017 Dilbert Sunday strip.


But a different, and not-quite politically correct, comic ran in my local weekend edition:

Dilbert © Scott Adams

Which version is in your paper?


June 26 update:

The Abilene Reporter-News released a statement to its readers:

The Dilbert cartoon in Sunday’s print and e-editions of the Reporter-News contains material that could be offensive to many readers. Our comics section was pre-printed and we were not able to replace it with another comic strip.


later June 26 update:

Scott Adams has acknowledged the replacement with a Tweet:

15 thoughts on “Your June 26, 2022 Dilbert Sunday Funny … or Not – updated

  1. The Wash Post has stopped delivering Sunday’s comics on Saturday to get rid of the plastic packaging the supplements came in.

  2. The Rochester NY /Democrat & Chronicle/ ran the substitute in their online edition. When we get home from Ithaca later today I’ll check if the paper edition matches.

  3. The Washington Post Sunday print edtion didn’t run Dilbert at all, but they ran the substitute edition in their online version. Maybe I’m just old and stupid (ok, not maybe), but for the life of me I can’t understand what the problem is with the edition that was supposed to run.

  4. The Gannett Sunday Comics Section, which is distributed to hundreds(?) of newspapers, time traveled to 2017 for Dilbert.

  5. The L.A. Times print and digital editions ran the time-traveling “Dilbert”. Not surprisingly, the reprint is funnier than the strip it replaced.

  6. I feel like there is way more Scott Adams coverage than readers want. There seems to be a Scott Adams post every few weeks. What about the rest of the cartoon world?

  7. The issue with today’s strip is that it repeats the lie that people simply choose to be transgender, presumably the way they choose to be gay.

    It’s humor on a level with making jokes about Black people and watermelon or miserly Jews. First Amendment says you can smear groups, but not that businesses are required to join in the hilarity.

  8. Roger – at least give me credit for updating the item
    without bouncing it to the top.

  9. Searching the archives for Dilbert shows this is only the second post about Dilbert this year. And only two for all of last year.
    That doesn’t seem too much for a comic strip that is currently
    one of the most widely circulated with around 2000 clients.

  10. Ok, I got the two editions mixed up. Told you I was old and stupid. I thought the time travel cartoon was the one that was being replaced, and I meant to add to my original post that I thought the other one was more problematic. So the Washington Post online ran the time travel edition.

  11. The Akron Beacon Journal (Gannett) ran this on p 1 bottom right :

    “We’re Sorry
    The Dilbert cartoon in today’s newspaper contains material thatcould be offensive to many readers. Unfortunatelyour comics section was pre-printed and we were bot abkle to reolace it with another comic strip.We apologize to readers who find offense,”

    Um – aren’t all the color comics Sunday sections pre-printed ?

    DD Degg :unlike the Gannett paper you saw, the BJ did not run the 2017 strip. Your statement makes me wonder what their excuse really was..

    Mike: actually, any strip with Wally in it offends me, because I’ve worked with so many “Wally”s in my life…

  12. From what I gathered, the Tampa Bay Times and Citrus County Chronicle ran the woke Dilbert.

    The Houston Chronicle, Orlando Sentinel and New York Daily News ran the time travel rerun.

  13. I guess comedy is going to be killed by PC. I thought the point of comics was to comment on our world and/or make fun of it. I do not even usually read Dilbert, but the censorship is frightening. I thought the original cartoon was a comment about the letter of the law(s). I did not see it as bashing any one group. You can read trouble into anything. I guess I will stick to Zits and Baby Blues until these are also attacked and censored or eliminated.
    I keep reading about Chickweed Lane. I stopped reading it long ago because it just wasn’t funny anymore.

  14. I agree with what Barbara Stone has said, and think the reaction from newspapers is frightening and an attack on humor and comedy. If you read the comics to be offended, you will be, and that’s your sh!t.
    God help us all if laughing at the absurdity of modern life is no longer OK. Isn’t there enough going on in this troubled world to raise our blood pressure, without getting bent out of shape over a cartoon in a newspaper?
    I think the cartoon is simply holding up a mirror to the absurdity some employees will go to try to benefit from company policies that don’t necessarily apply to them. Removing the cartoon removes the opportunity for conversation, thought and debate and the chance to use humor to bring us closer. There’s nothing mean-spirited in the cartoon, and it says more about newspaper editor’s fear of their readers than it does about the author of the cartoon. My guess is these decisions are being made at a corporate level, so who knows, maybe the editors don’t even get a say. I find it very discouraging.

Comments are closed.