Posted on 02/03/2006 5:05:38 PM PST by Pikamax
U.S. Newspapers Decline to Publish 'Muhammad' Cartoons
By Joe Strupp
Published: February 03, 2006 3:50 PM ET
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."
Ohio newspapers ran them a lot. Start with Canton, Columbus, and Cincinnati.
Oh, please. Do a cost/benefit analysis of this. If the cartoons are published in U.S. newspapers, what has been accomplished? Does it really benefit the national interest to do so?
However, you are right about them always being inflamed by something or other. But there's no point in picking fights over things of no importance.
Here's a slideshow. In reality, pretty mild stuff: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/Jyllands-Posten-Cartoons/?imgIndex=1&autoShow=6
What was accomplished by running the Christ dipped in urine? These papers are cowards. They are afraid for their lives. They have nothing to fear from Christians and so insult them with impunity.
This tells the jihadis that they have the US msm totally cowed, of course. Shame on our cowardly press!
Anything that provokes a response that reveals the Muzzies' true nature is OK with me. All the tutt-tutting and chin-tugging by the American press is just a smokescreen to hide their cowardice.
"""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." ""
So let me get this straight... a cartoon is as horrific as a terrorist attack??? The post carries a cartoon of a US soldier missing all of his limbs, but that's tasteful and non-horrific? What a bunch of a-holes. And they wonder why the media in general is losing credibility.
You're correct to condemn the blasphemous "art" from the early 1990's and Christian-bashing. And you're on the money about the newspapers being hypocritical on religious sensibilities.
But that still doesn't mean that publishing the cartoons is a good idea.
I disagree.
The important "news" in the images themselves is that they are so mild, so INoffensive. A very significant part of the story now is that American print media -- so prideful in its fearless determination to tell all "without fear or favor" -- has been massively intimidated off its lofty perch. People need to see for themselves that this whole bruhaha has much the character of American "street culture" which is always justifying infantile rage on the basis of having been "dissed."
The people need to be able to judge for themselves whether these images are so profoundly offensive or whether bold editors are just running scared.
Excellent Point
The cartoons are the story. Does anyone believe if they weren't dealing with such a PC and lethal group as the Mohammedans the cartoons wouldn't be published?
Our ability to say what we want in our own country, without outside interference, is of great importance.
Remember this: If it were not for the INTERNET, we would not have this discourse, would not have this exchange of information and sources and opinions.
I kind of like it that we aren't publishing them,,it is a good thing to see the europeans take the heat for a while.
In fact, I am enjoying the hell out of watching the Muslims go nuts. At someone else.
As others have noted in various threads, this editorial timorousness was nowhere in evidence when "Piss Christ" was all the hip buzz and was widely reproduced in print. (Seems like it might have even been a cover story for one of the weekly news mags???)
We cannot tolerate "guests" to the West attempting to make all the rules for our behavior.
ePower to the people!
Piss be upon Satan and all his minions.
God, I pray for those lost to the one single absolute truth that I myself discounted for so many years.
May the evil one be BOUND and GAGGED and those that are deceived by his LIES be FREED.
In Jesus, the Son of God, in His name.
Amen. So help me.
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.