This exchange between a local Fraternal Order Of Police head and a newspaper that ran a Milt Priggee cartoon that reference the Charleston AME murders -- I think this one -- has a respectful back and forth feel to it. What's weird is that the editor doesn't have to just address that particular cartoon but the context of the newspaper's general policy towards cartoons and towards supporting the police.
I find that kind of language fascinating because it show how much we process issues according to frameworks established by social media. A criticism of any public agency, including a police force, shouldn't somehow constitute a withdrawl or diminishment of support in the same way a positive cartoon shouldn't mean full endorsement. That's commercial language, that's not how we used to process ideas, and it's distressing to see that kind of thinking seep into what should be a standard, respectful enterprise: people disagreeing about the issues as presented by a media publication.