U.S. Newspapers Decline to Publish 'Muhammad' Cartoons

NEW YORK As a collection of controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad circulates online and through some European publications, prompting numerous acts of violence abroad, nearly all U.S. newspapers have chosen not to publish the cartoons.

Although most American papers have covered the issue, with many running Page One stories, most contend the cartoons are too offensive to run, and can be properly reported through descriptions. While some have linked to the images on the Web, others are considering publishing one or more of them next week. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Inquirer has complained that The Associated Press should at least distribute the images and allow members papers to make the call.

"They wouldn't meet our standards for what we publish in the paper," said Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, which ran a front-page story on the issue Friday, but has not published the cartoons. "We have standards about language, religious sensitivity, racial sensitivity and general good taste."

Downie, who said the images also had not been placed on the Post Web site, compared the decision to similar choices not to run offensive photos of dead bodies or offensive language. "We described them," he said of such images. "Just like in the case of covering the hurricanes in New Orleans or terrorist attacks in Iraq. We will describe horrific scenes."

At USA Today, deputy foreign editor Jim Michaels offered a similar explanation. "At this point, I'm not sure there would be a point to it," he said about publishing the cartoons. "We have described them, but I am not sure running it would advance the story." Although he acknowledged that the cartoons have news value, he said the offensive nature overshadows that.

"It has been made clear that it is offensive," Michaels said when asked if the paper was afraid of sparking violence or other kinds of backlash. "I don't know if fear is the right word. But we came down on the side that we could serve readers well without a depiction that is offensive."

The Los Angeles Times sent this statement to E&P this afternoon: "Our newsroom and op-ed page editors, independently of each other, determined that the caricatures could be deemed offensive to some readers and the there were effective ways to cover the controversy without running the images themselves."

The cartoons, which include one of the Muslim prophet wearing a turban fashioned into a bomb, have been reprinted in papers in Norway, France, Germany and Jordan after first running in a Danish paper last September. The drawings were published again recently after some Muslims decried them as insulting to their prophet, AP reported, adding that Dutch-language newspapers in Belgium and two Italian "right-wing" papers reprinted the drawings Friday.

Islamic law, according to most clerics' interpretations of the Quran, forbids depictions of Muhammad and other major religious figures -- even positive images.

Tens of thousands of angry Muslims marched through Palestinian cities, burning the Danish flag and calling for vengeance Friday against European countries where the caricatures were published. In Washington, the State Department criticized the drawings, calling them "offensive to the beliefs of Muslims."

Still, most American newspapers are not publishing the cartoons, sticking mostly to the view that they constitute offensive images. "You want to make sure that you are sensitive to the cultural sensitivities," said Mike Days, editor of the Philadelphia Daily News, which may run the images next week, but remains cautious. "I think you want to do it in a way that makes sense. I am not so sure the average American understands what the controversy is about, the use of the images of Muhammad."

Days said the paper might run the cartoons along with comments from experts in Muslim law so that the reasons behind the controversy are clear. It appears the New York Sun is the only American daily to run the images, according to The Washington Times.

Several newspapers, such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, have either placed the cartoons on a Web page or linked to a Web site that has them. The Inquirer, which has not run the images in print or on its site, has a Web link to a Belgium news page where the cartoons can be seen.

"We are taking it on a day-by-day basis, depending on the story," said Anne Gordon, Inquirer managing editor. "We have run an image of someone looking at a paper with the cartoon. We feel strongly that if the story takes another turn, we are prepared to publish."

Gordon criticized the Associated Press for not distributing images of the cartoons to member newspapers. Although Gordon understands the concerns about sensitivity, she said AP should allow each paper to make up its own mind.

"It is not AP's role to withhold information from news cooperative members," Gordon said. "They are a co-op and we believe they overstepped their bounds to independently withhold the cartoon. It is not their decision to make independently."

Kathleen Carroll, AP executive editor, said the news cooperative has long withheld images it deemed offensive, such as photos and video of beheadings. "We have a very longstanding policy of not distributing material that is found to be offensive," she said, adding that the Inquirer was the only newspaper she knew of that had specifically requested the images from AP. "These images have not met that standard."

But Carroll also agreed with some other editors who said the cartoons did not add to the news coverage in a major way. "If people want to find them, they are easily found," she said.

Doug Clifton, editor of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, agreed that the offensive nature precluded running the cartoons. "It has become a part of great angst and I don't see any reason to run it, you can just describe it," he said of the cartoon images. "I don't see a need to insert ourselves in that fight."

Clifton recalled his time at the Charlotte [N.C.] Observer years ago, when the paper ran an image of a controversial piece of artwork, in which a crucifix was placed in a glass of urine. "You knew you would get an outpouring of anger," he recalled. "If I thought there were very good editorial reasons for running it, we'd run it. But I don't think there are."

But Clifton said his paper will likely place a link to the images from another site when it runs an editorial on the issue Saturday or Sunday. "They will have the option to see it if they choose," he said about the Web readers. "The [print] newspaper reaches a much, much broader audience."

A New Zealand blogger (he is conservative by New Zealand standards, which is roughly corresponding to US's moderate conservative side) has remarked on US media that:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/archives/013133.html

"Contrary to what many may think I actually regard the NZ media as light-years ahead of much of the US media.

While journalists in NZ are certainly, on average, more left-wing than the average population (which gets reflected in subconscious bias rather than deliberate bias) we have a reasonably balanced press gallery. I get frustrated at the lack of serious research and content in some publications or broadcasters but that's another issue. Yes Radio NZ seems to have a near total absence of conservative commentators but private radio is more diverse so overall not such a big issue.

However in the US (where around 90% of journalists are Democrats) the bias is incredible. Power Line gives a good example of an outrageous New York Times and ABC story on Justice Scalia suggesting he was on a junket instead of being at the swearing in on the Chief Justice.

Personally I don't have an issue with partisan media, so long as they don't pretend to be something else. In NZ for example everyone knows the NBR is right wing and hence its articles are read taking that into account. Likewise everyone knows the Listener is (or was!) left-wing. State owned media are a different matter as they *have* to be non-partisan. Of course in my ideal world we would have no state owned media!"

The image problem does not come out of the Koran, but from a Hadith.

Kind of like a life and times of Mohammed. This is also part of the religion. What I like about Islam is it is hard to misinterpret. - Tom

Volume 7, Book 72, Number 833: Narrated Abu Talha : The Prophet said, "Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or there are pictures."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 834: Narrated Muslim:

We were with Masruq at the house of Yasar bin Numair. Masruq saw pictures on his terrace and said, "I heard 'Abdullah saying that he heard the Prophet saying, "The people who will receive the severest punishment from Allah will be the picture makers.'"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 835: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar :

Allah's Apostle said, "Those who make these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them. 'Make alive what you have created.'"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 836: Narrated 'Aisha:

I never used to leave in the Prophet house anything carrying images or crosses but he obliterated it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 837: Narrated Abu Zur'a:

l entered a house in Medina with Abu Huraira, and he saw a man making pictures at the top of the house. Abu Huraira said, "I heard Allah's Apostle saying that Allah said, 'Who would be more unjust than the one who tries to create the like of My creatures? Let them create a grain: let them create a gnat.' "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 838: Narrated 'Aisha:

Allah's Apostle returned from a journey when I had placed a curtain of mine having pictures over (the door of) a chamber of mine. When Allah's Apostle saw it, he tore it and said, "The people who will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection will be those who try to make the like of Allah's creations." So we turned it (i.e., the curtain) into one or two cushions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 840: Narrated 'Aisha :

I purchased a cushion with pictures on it. The Prophet (came and) stood at the door but did not enter. I said (to him), "I repent to Allah for what (the guilt) I have done." He said, "What is this cushion?" I said, "It is for you to sit on and recline on." He said, "The makers of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it will be said to them, 'Make alive what you have created.' Moreover, the angels do not enter a house where there are pictures.'"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 841: Narrated Abu Talha:

Allah's Apostle said, "Angels (of mercy) do not enter a house where there are pictures.'" The sub-narrator Busr added: "Then Zaid fell ill and we paid him a visit. Behold! There was, hanging at his door, a curtain decorated with a picture. I said to 'Ubaidullah Al-Khaulani, the step son of Maimuna, the wife of the Prophet , "Didn't Zaid tell us about the picture the day before yesterday?" 'Ubaidullah said, "Didn't you hear him saying: 'except a design in a garment'?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 842: Narrated Anas:

Aisha had a thick curtain (having pictures on it) and she screened the side of her i house with it. The Prophet said to her, "Remove it from my sight, for its pictures are still coming to my mind in my prayers."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 843: Narrated Salim's father:

Once Gabriel promised to visit the Prophet but he delayed and the Prophet got worried about that. At last he came out and found Gabriel and complained to him of his grief (for his delay). Gabriel said to him, "We do not enter a place in which there is a picture or a dog."

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.