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."
I would defend, to the last drop of my blood, your statement.
TAKE THAT YOU ISLAMIC DUNG FOR BRAINS!
Thank Al Gore for that!
Thanks for the new tagline.
"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."
ePower to the people!
***Protect the People's power!
Most journalists are scum.
Downie knows that Americans and American soldiers won't put a fatwa on his slimy a**, and hunt him down and kill him.
On the other hand, I'm sure Downie knows Salman Rushdie, and how Rushdie had to hide out from the Death Cult of the Moon God...
I think the term for Downie and his brethren in the MSM is "chickens**t".
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 consolidated media ownership into a few companies. Since these companies are multinational, they censor the news to suit their multicultural global agenda. Before the telecommunications act was passed, there were more, smaller organizations that could afford to reflect the opinions and freedoms of the American people.
Hmmmm, the Washington Post wasn't afraid to print a cartoon insulting Rumsfeld and a wounded vet, guess we always knew whose side the MSM was on in this war.
We have two choices: 1)continue to be politically correct and let them continue to spread out, multiply and spread their brand of hatred or 2)wake up, smell the coffee and realize that Mohammad told them there is only two options for infidels be converted to Islam or be killed.
This is what they are taught and the sooner everyone quits bending over and wakes up the better. I just hope it's not too late when we wake up.
LOL! Man, you had me going for a moment there. I almost believed that your post was serious, but then I realized you were joking.
What a card!
Perhaps their cult is the Army of Satan that will fight at Armageddon.
Note, this is the real culprit which the LSM is NOT reporting, go figure!??!
To see these 3 drawings, you can find them on Maline Malkin's web site!!!
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Islamic Society of Denmark Used Fake Cartoons to Create Story!
THIS WHOLE DANISH CARTOON CONTROVERSY WAS MADE UP BY THE "ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF DENMARK" WHO SPREAD THE FAKE CARTOONS ON THEIR TRIP TO THE MIDDLE EAST!
The leader of the group is a radical Islamist known for supporting the Anti-Western Islamist struggle!
The organisation Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons, bringing 3 additional images, which HAD NEVER been published in any media source. Evidently, the originals were not offensive enough for the trip so they had to add these three:
The first of the three additional pictures, which are of poor quality, shows Muhammad as a pedophile demon.*
The second shows Muhammed with a pig snout.*
The third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog*.
BBC World also aired a story showing one of the three non-published images, on 2006-01-30, and wrongly claimed it had been published in Jyllands-Posten.
On the tour, the group claimed to represent 21 different Muslim organisations in Denmark, although many of these groups have disclaimed any connection.
Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish Muslim organisations which organised the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims."
Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity. These images had however never been published in Jyllands-Posten.
The society also allegedly exaggerated its membership, claiming to represent all of Denmark's 200,000 Muslims, when the actual number of adherents is believed to be fewer than 15,000. [30]. 500-1000 people attend their Friday prayer gathering each week[31].
Imam Ahmad Abu Ladan is involved in an international group of Muslims who are known for supporting the anti-Western Islamist struggle of the school of global Jihad.
Imam Ahmad Abu Ladan also tried to block the re-election of the right-wing government in Denmark in the previous election.
Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, the leader of the organisation stated in Al Jazeera that Muslims should boycott Denmark, despite giving contradictory assurances to Western media. Ahmad Abu Laban, previously declared unwelcome in several Arab states, was one of the front figures on the tour [citation needed].
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said of Muslims criticising the country in the Arab territories: "I am speechless that those people, whom we have given the right to live in Denmark and where they freely have chosen to stay, are now touring Arab countries and inciting antipathy towards Denmark and the Danish people"[33].
Further misinformation spread among Arab Muslims include claims that Jyllands-Posten is a government-owned newspaper (it is privately owned) - spokesman for the Danish delegation Muhammed al Samha, and delegation member Ahmed al-Harbi said in the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram: "Jyllands-Posten, a newspaper belonging to the ruling Danish party - an extreme right-wing party - [was] publishing drawings and sketches of the prophet Muhammad."
* I shrank up the outrageous and fake cartoons from original size. I do not intend to offend.
The Brussels Journal has been following the story closely from Europe.
Shawn Wasson notices the selective outrage.
The Astute Blogger has more on Abu Ladan lying to the media!
Counterterrorism Blog has more on Abu Laden's mideast stunts, today.
Zombietime has the largest collection of Muhammad pictures on the net.
And, Pajamas Media is carrying the story from a variety of blog perspectives.
Michelle Malkin has a huge roundup on the two-faced American media.
Belmont Club has thoughtful analysis on what this all means.
The mainstream news is so out of touch with this story.
Not only is publishing the 'toons a 'good idea', it should be published as part of uSA government-schooling curriculum criterion. The discussion would be HEALTHY and should be partaken of.
I sent this e-mail to all in my address book:
Hi there:
May I ask you to support my former home country after the muslim’s boycott of all Danish Goods. We ourselves are using a number of Danish foods. Havarti Cheese we buy in big blocks from Sam’s, a well seasoned and not too strong cheese. The Danish “Lurpak” Butter, you can’t get a better tasting butter, comes slighted salted or un-salted. 2005 won “Best Taste Award.”
Plumrose Danish Ham canned is a class for itself.
Frozen back ribs for the bbq beats anything else. The Danish porks are long and slender with very little fat.
Our slogan at international soccer (fodbold) games is: “We are red, we are white, we are Danish dynamite!”
Please send this around to people in your address book, thank you!
Poul
"BUY DANISH" ASK MY DANISH FRIENDS/ UPDATE
John Zimmerman is right. The Muslim countries have chosen to pressure liberal little Denmark in order to teach the media and governments, which stand by them, a lesson which does not bode well for free speech or satire. Kuwait has joined the Saudi boycott (the Saudi market alone is worth 1.2 billion) and I suspect the rest will follow. So, here is a plea from my Danish friends:
"If you Americans look with this great sympathy on our case, couldn't you then raise a consumer support of DK in the US? The opposite of a boycott. A movement of: "Buy Danish!" Please?
You can easily eat and digest all our famous Danish cheese at your millions of breakfast-tables from Seattle to Atlanta. Then the boycott (which is escalating fast down there now) will be harmless.
Well, we can and should. In fact the idea immediately occurred to the readers of Charles of LGF who was kind enough to post the news about the Saudi boycott on his popular site. They recommended you buy not only the always delicious Danish butter cookies but also:
Danish Havarti cheese
Carlsberg and Tuborg Beers.
Arla owns White Clover Dairy, a Wisconsin company so buy that brand. It comes under White Clover and Holland Farm.
Danish Crown hams ( DAK (sold at Sam clubs)... baby back ribs, because they come from Denmark.
You shop online at The Danish Foodshop and Danish Deli Foods.
You can also buy gorgious Danish porcelain and LEGO for the kids.
UPDATE: First, the speed with which this movement took flight is amazing and encouraging. Thanks, guys, for helping spread in on your blogs. The boycott is gathering steam. Our old friend Libya also withdrew its ambassador. But the Danes are standing firm and the EU (for the moment) is standing by them:
EU trade chief Peter Mandelson met a Saudi minister at a meeting in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos on Sunday and "urged the minister to convey the seriousness of this issue to his government," his spokesman said.
"Any boycott of Danish goods would be seen as a boycott of European goods," said spokesman Peter Power.
An opinion poll showed that 79 percent of Danes think Fogh Rasmussen should not issue an apology and 62 percent say the newspaper should not apologize.
Understood. In the big picture though, the Anglosphere has to stand together (despite our family spats).
Predators go after the animals that show weakness.
How sad is it that the French(!) have shown more courage in running these cartoons than the Americans or British have?
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.