What did Andrews McMeel and major newspapers state publicly when they cut ties with Scott Adams in February 2023?
Executive summary
When syndicator Andrews McMeel Universal announced it was “severing our relationship” with Scott Adams in late February 2023, the company framed the decision as a values-based business break — saying Adams’s remarks about Black Americans were incompatible with the syndicate’s core values and that it would not support commentary “rooted in discrimination or hate” [1] [2]. At the same time dozens of major newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, USA Today–affiliated papers, The New York Times and others publicly said they would stop running Dilbert, citing the creator’s racist comments as the reason for suspending or dropping the strip [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Andrews McMeel: “Severing our relationship” and a statement about values
Andrews McMeel’s public position was concise and categorical: the syndication company announced it was “severing our relationship” with Dilbert creator Scott Adams and that the termination would extend across “all areas of our business” with him and the comic strip, stressing that while the company supports free speech, Adams’s comments were incompatible with the firm’s core values and that it will not support commentary rooted in discrimination or hate [7] [1] [2].
2. Major newspapers: immediate suspensions and explicit repudiations
Within days of Adams’s online remarks, a broad swath of publishers said they would no longer run Dilbert; outlets named in reporting included the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, USA Today network papers, The New York Times and The Boston Globe among others, with each publication either suspending the strip or announcing its removal and citing the creator’s racist statements as the motivating factor [3] [4] [6] [5].
3. Language used by publishers: distancing, values alignment, and editorial discretion
News organizations framed their pullbacks in terms of editorial responsibility and values alignment: reporting shows papers described the remarks as racially insensitive or racist and framed decisions as choices not to platform commentary they found discriminatory, reflecting a broader trend of media companies aligning content decisions with stated corporate and editorial values [2] [5] [3].
4. Adams’s response and the competing narrative of censorship vs. business choice
Scott Adams pushed back publicly, calling his remarks hyperbolic and framing the fallout as a business decision rather than censorship; he moved new strips to a subscription service and argued publishers made a commercial choice — a rebuttal that was reported alongside the corporate and newspaper statements [5] [2]. The public record therefore shows two distinct framings: corporate repudiation grounded in values, and Adams’s claim of hyperbole and entrepreneurial pivot.
5. Broader consequences publishers noted publicly beyond syndication
Publishers and business partners also pulled planned projects tied to Adams: Penguin Random House’s imprint Portfolio announced it would not publish his upcoming book, and media reporting tied the cancellation of publishing plans and syndication to the same public backlash over his comments [2] [8]. This was presented in mainstream reports as part of the cascade of commercial and reputational consequences following the remarks [4].
6. Context, consistency, and limits of public statements
The public statements by Andrews McMeel and newspapers were consistent in tone — they emphasized incompatibility with stated values and refused to support hateful or discriminatory commentary — but reporting also makes clear the companies framed decisions as business and editorial judgments rather than legal or content-moderation rulings; sources report both the companies’ explicit language and Adams’s counterclaims, and the record in these outlets does not adjudicate motive beyond the firms’ stated rationales [1] [5] [3].