We’ve been having a vigorous debate in our newsroom about whether to publish the cartoons that have sparked riots and violence across the Middle East and in Europe. To date, we haven’t.
By publication, I’m referring to both print and online.
The Philadelphia Inquirer to date is the only major U.S. newspaper to have run the cartoons. There’s a healthy discussion across the media industryon whether to run the cartoons or even to link to them.
It’s easy to say that linking isn’t publishing. We’re just providing a way for readers to get more information if they choose. But I think that’s a bit of a dodge. If we provide the link, we are in a sense taking ownership of what’s behind that door.
Journalism is about a lot of things, but often it’s about being a gatekeeper. Every day, we decide what fits best into the newspaper, with an eye toward answering the questions of what do readers need to know about their world. We take these decisions seriously.
We have written extensively about the cartoons and described them in ways that make clear their content. In that sense, it’s no different than when we write that someone made a “crude gesture with his hand.” Most people know what that means.
Generally speaking, we try not to offend, and we never run stories or photos just for the sake of running them. But have we offended? Of course. The world is a dangerous and complex place. Many folks complained when we ran a photo of the Blackwater Security personnel who were killed and burned in Iraq. Others complained about our decision to run photos of the two sons of Saddam Hussein after they were killed.
We thought those photos told something that couldn’t be described in words.
Your host is Ken Otterbourg, the managing editor at the Winston-Salem Journal. It's a forum to discuss the media, from
The cartoons have caused many to die and hundreds to be injured
all caused by the ones protesting. I suppose they have to keep
up the image of fanatics.
The content of the images has been described in almost every media channel already. Your readers should understand by now that they contain images that are extremely offensive to those following the Islamic faith.
In much the same way that no one would want to see an image of Christ engaging in sexual misconduct with minors during the recent news stories related to the Catholic Church, no one really wants to see Muhammad represented in this light.
I see no need to republish them.
That said, the content of the images is important and they warrant discussion. The cartoons represent how many Americans and Europeans (wrongly) view the entire Muslim community. They also could create an opportunity for Muslim leaders around the world to stand up and denouce the radical fundamentalist movements that are sweeping their communities.
Sadly, we’re seeing little of that - or we’re seeing little coverage of that.
My recommendation is to not republish the cartoons but instead to reach out to local Muslim leaders and engage them in an open and productive dialog about the issue.
In the U.S. We have all seen cartoons of Christ that we do not
aprove of. Even to Muslims it is offensive. Most Muslims that
are protesting have not seen the cartoons, They only know to
parrot the fundamentalist clerics view. It’s the culture of the
Islamic world they live in. The only education many have is the
Saudi financed schools that incite hate and only teach reading
of the Koran, or the Wahhabi mullahas version as they see it.
There is hope many Muslims in America have interfaith meetings
that are open to debate the problems we have. We can only hope
this will be productive.
For several days, there has been a vigorous “First-Amendment” type debate on this subject on The Editor’s Blog (“the Danish Cartoons) . . . and before that, on Allen Johnson’s “Thinking Out Loud” blog (“The Cartoon Controversy) . . . over at the Greensboro News & Record.
As the first post/commentary on The Editor’s Blog, a blogger linked a site that published the cartoons - and JR, despite the paper’s editorial policy on the toons - did not kill the link. I agree that it’s a dodge.
The cartoons are NEWS. I note a story on your webpage today - the Muslim professsor talking about sensitivity, and wanting an apology. A vaild response to that is, if your faith is about “peace” and “tolerance”, then practice (and call for) peace and tolerance. Demonstrate AGAINST the violence. STOP rioting and pipe-bombing embassies. And get over the cartoons. They’re cartoons. Respect the rights of others (who do not share your views) to see and make up their own minds.
The American media’s so-called “sensititivy” on this subject seems to me to be based more in fear - a kind of journalistic burqa. As for editorial policy, say what you mean and mean what you say. Anything else is hypocrisy.
Before considering printing these cartoons, may I ask that you reflect on when was the last time you published a cartoon mocking a Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham or other such prominent members of the US christian or jewish religious establishment, let alone Jesus Christ.
If “freedom of press” does not extend to those currently held in reverence or power or favor, then surely you can understand why muslims in general feel so deeply offended at the Prophet’s (PBUH) depiction in those cartoons.
Also, if you publish, then you will have to account for all the previous times you have elected not to publish similar material on different faiths.
As the only country to have used nuclear weapons, where is the moral authority to object to suicide bombers?
The Journal has printed cartoons of Jerry Fawell and of Jessus
that many Christians found offensive. If they received threats
of death, it was kept secret.
The United States has only used nuclear weapons to stop a war,
not to start one. Did this save more lives than bomb killed? I
can only hope so. To ridicule ones religion or to retaliate with
violence breeds hate. This I do know.
I agree completely with Anon, especially the last point he makes. To respect another’s culture and religion is not cowardice, it demonstrates tolerance. I support the various editors’ who decided not to publish and I feel their choice was the best decision, all things considered. However, I also believe in the right to reprint these cartoons by those who choose to do so.
Yes, after all the riots I WANT TO SEE ALL THE CARTOONS.
I want to know what the craziness is all about. I want to form my own opinion. Those that do NOT WANT THE CARTOONS PUBLISHED SHOULD NOT LOOK.
Those that want to see, should be allowed to see. I never read the funny papers on Sunday nor any cartoons, magazines, etc, but in this case, I think, after 6 months, it’s about time, all the caricatures be made public to EVERYONE.
We should not be intimidated anymore . . maybe the cartoons portrayed exactly what followed, is this why we can’t see them? Where are they published? [removed]void(0);
Any word and any photograph is subject to interpretation by the individual reader and viewer. There is also a thing called overkill. Anyone who reads a newspaper or listens to the news on their tv is aware of the cartoons in question. Those who want to keep this topic uppermost in their life can certainly find the cartoons they wish to view on a web page that has already published them. The statement the Journal
has made to me in not publishing the cartoons is that there is news today that needs to be reported. Everytime the cartoons are published it inflames our adversaries in the Middle East even more. There is no reason to add fuel to this fire. The Journal’s decision to move on allows for a bit of healing to take place and the world needs a lot of that right now.
Is there a difference between publishing the cartoons in the newspaper and linking to them??
I wanted to see for myself too. In general I do not understand religious beliefs, even the Catholic ones I grew up with. The reports about the cartoon controversy seem to be focusing on the humor content of the cartoons (or lack thereof) and not the fact that any visual representation of Muhammad is considered idolatry. It might help to visit the Wikipedia timeline. But how ironic is it that this all began by someone wanting to publish a children’s biography of Muhammad, which might have helped develop MORE understanding between cultures . . .
The cartoons are here
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.