Posted on 02/03/2006 9:00:56 AM PST by TrebleRebel
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US media has so far largely shied away from reproducing controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed carried in several European newspapers, citing the potentially offensive nature of the drawings.
ADVERTISEMENT
Deals released on Feb 1 - Limited Time Offers! Southwest $49* O/W fare sale $49* Las Vegas 3nts + R/T air $304* Flights to Mexico $212* Jamaica 3-nt vacation + R/T air $377 Caribbean hotel deals $55 Win a $5,000 'You'll Love London' Vacation! New Hawaii 5nt air/hotel packages $499* More Deals...
Editors contacted at several news organizations throughout the country said they were covering the escalating row over the cartoons but had generally decided not to reprint them or air them on television out of respect for their readers or viewers.
"If I were faced with something that I know is gonna be offensive to many of our readers, I would think twice about whether the benefit of publication outweighed the offense it might give," Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor at the Washington Post, told AFP.
Keith Richburg, the paper's foreign editor, said he had ruled out running the cartoons, even to better illustrate news articles about the row, as they would likely offend readers.
"This is a clear example where people would find those offensive so we don't see any particular reason to do it just for shock value," he said.
Hiatt and Richburg said the paper had also ruled out running the cartoons -- as several European newspapers have done -- to defend the right to free speech and in solidarity with the Danish newspaper that first published them. The drawings have sparked violent protests and boycotts of Danish products across the Muslim world.
One of the cartoons shows the Muslim prophet wearing a headdress shaped like a bomb, while another shows him saying that paradise is running out of virgins for suicide bombers.
The Islamic religion bans depictions of Mohammed.
Peter Gavrilovich, foreign editor of the daily Detroit Free Press in the state of Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab communities outside the Middle East, said it was out of the question for his paper to reprint the cartoons, either to illustrate the story or to show solidarity with counterparts in Europe.
"I don't think we would run a cartoon in this newspaper that would be deemed offensive to any religious figure," Gavrilovich told AFP. "We're very careful in terms of any photo or any caricature that we run."
Maria Henson, deputy foreign editor at the Sacramento Bee in California, said her publication had not yet decided whether to reprint the cartoons and was planning to run an editorial on the issue this weekend.
The New York Times declined to comment for this article.
CNN television on Thursday showed copies of European newspapers that have printed the cartoons but blocked out the images of Mohammed saying it did not wish to offend viewers.
The television network ABC for its part showed a copy of a French newspaper with one of the cartoons clearly visible. The drawing depicts God speaking with the prophet and telling him: "Stop complaining Mohammed. We've all been caricatured."
The NBC network also gave coverage to the uproar but said it had decided against airing the cartoons, which were nonetheless available on the network's website.
One editorial, written by a syndicated columnist and carried Thursday in several newspapers, defended the cartoons as a form of free expression.
"Until Muslim nations and peoples get the idea that free expression means freedom to offend as well as the necessary correlative -- to be offended -- we have a problem," the editorial, written by Kathleen Parker, said.
Pure comedy.
You mean there are still Americans out there who haven't seen the cartoons yet?
He who hesitates...usually has to wait for the next gas station...
Are they still printing those rags?
The newspapers are just following the state department's lead. LOL.
Thank you Master. Grasshopper will now cross his legs and wait...
OTOH, if you have a thermos with you...yes, speaking from personal experience :-(
So their take is Crucifix in a jar of urine-Good. A truthful portrayal of a satanic death cult-bad.
< ...but making sport of quadruple amputee soldiers is acceptable. < /sarc > >
I've wondered ever since I saw the cartoon what would be the outcry from the left if a conservative cartoonist did something similar, only identifying the soldier as Max Cleland. It's all relative, isn't it?
We really don't need cartoon depictions. We have millions of his followers that show us what he really is.
Pure comedy.
Funny pictures of Armless, legless soldiers don't qualify.
of course the MSM had no problem berating Rudy Guiliani and accusing him of surpressing free speech when, as mayor of New York, he threatened to withhold public funds from an "art" exhibit in which elephant sh!t had be thrown onto a statue of the Holy Mother...of course politically sensative libs were lined up to buy tickets so they could see the exhibit!! Of course the NY Slimes applauded the Museum's "courageuous stand"!!
"Chronology
compiled by Sonya Kimble-Ellis and William R. Kaizen
September 22, 1999
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani threatens to withhold city funding (about $7 million per year) from the Brooklyn Museum of Art if it doesn't cancel the exhibition, Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection. Chris Ofili's painting Holy Virgin Mary, part of the exhibition, is singled out as particularly offensive to Catholics because it includes an Afro-centric Madonna, elephant dung and collaged images from pornographic magazines. The city also threatens to withhold an additional $20 million already promised to the museum for capital improvements.
September 23, 1999
Giuliani increases his efforts against the museum threatening to terminate the museum's lease on the city owned building which it occupies and to seize control of the museum's Board of Directors. He claims that the museum violated the lease when it decided to prohibit children under 17 from entering the exhibit without an adult. The lease states that the museum must be free, open and accessible to all public and private schools. The Health Department is sent to the museum to investigate the exhibit because of Damien Hirst's dead animal sculptures. They find no health risks.
September 27, 1999
A proposal is made to remove some of the controversial works from the upcoming exhibition. The idea is quickly squelched by Arnold Lehman, the museum’s director. Lehman is not, however, completely opposed to separating some of the more controversial works of art from the rest of the exhibit. In order to diffuse the Mayor's attempt to use the ban on children as grounds for evicting the Museum the museum's Board votes to lift the age restriction and to post warning signs. This focuses the dispute on the First Amendment. Ofili says he doesn't feel the need to defend his painting and that it speaks for itself. He does, however, attribute his use of elephant dung to his African heritage saying that during a visit there he was struck by the beauty of the animals and the landscape. Ofili asserts that he was raised Catholic and still believes in God. "
http://www.nyfa.org/archive_detail_q.asp?type=1&qid=64&fid=6&year=2000&s=Winter
Ewwww.
A bit too much information. (But I give you points for inventiveness.)
The way to oppose the Muslim jihad against the West is not to engage in a peeing contest to see who can come up with the most offensive cartoon.
The way to deal with Muslims terrorists is to kill them dead.
The way to oppose the Muslim jihad against the West is not to engage in a peeing contest to see who can come up with the most offensive cartoon.
The way to deal with Muslims terrorists is to kill them dead.
Was listening to Radio Netherlands last night, this whole incident is now being viewed by many European pundits as a free speech issue.
How come they don't shy away from Christian and conservative bashing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.