Posted on 02/04/2006 10:46:39 PM PST by SmithL
Last week the editorial page received hundreds of letters and e-mails suggesting that The Post's opinion pages had crossed a line, not once but twice. The criticism echoed, in a very faint way, a controversy raging through Europe and the Muslim world. Three distinct stories -- but together they offer a chance to say something about how we view the role and responsibility of opinion pages.
The European affair began Sept. 30, when a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Muslims view any picture of Islam's founder as blasphemous, and these were particularly insulting; one showed him with a bomb in his headdress.
Muslim protests simmered through the fall, gaining strength in recent weeks with boycotts of Danish products and demands that Denmark's prime minister apologize. To show solidarity with the Danish paper, newspapers in many European countries last week reprinted the cartoons. Protests in several Muslim countries in turn gained strength, in some cases with violence threatened against Europeans and their embassies.
What to make of this? Muslims (and anyone else) are well within their rights to protest the publication of the cartoons if they are offended. They show a basic misunderstanding, though, when they demand apologies from leaders of Denmark or other European countries. In many Muslim-majority countries (Egypt and Syria, for example), officials do control most of the press and so are accountable for the ugly anti-Semitism that often appears in their newspapers. In Denmark, as here, the government cannot tell newspapers what to print or what not to print. We are free to be offensive.
But that leads to an important distinction: The freedom to offend brings with it a responsibility not to offend gratuitously.
That is the line that we at The Post were said to have crossed last week.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Have your cartoon handy?
Too bad the Pravda on the Potomac didn't disappear with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Oh, no disrespect meant to any men who have lost arms and legs. I am sure they don't mind being portrayed in this way by a liberal who has never served in the military, doesn't know anyone on active duty, and probably never has.
This is just a fatuous attempt to explain away their anti-American posturing which panders to their last five readers, all of whom must be looney leftists. Newspapers are on the way to extinction, and the attitude displayed in this article is the reason.
Impotent rant against the internet.
What kind of idiotic statement is that? Here's a big newsflash to the dinosaurs at the Washington Post, but I chose what I wanted to read and not read long before algore invented the internet.
Political cartoons are essentially a license to take cheap shots.
Ridicule is a weapon appropriate for the powerless against the powerful. But in our culture, it has been the MSM -- all powerful until recently -- that has used cartoons against conservatism and other grassroots sentiment.
American politics has grown so vicious; world politics seems to edge closer everyday to the use of WMDs. Debate need to be carried on with seriousness, fairness, and a decent respect for others, not with crayons.
And take a look at this:
I think it's an indictment of Rumsfeld, who is portrayed as callous and inaccurate in his depiction of the Army and its soldiers. Whether that's fair to the defense secretary is a separate question.
Ah, evidently not, huh, Mr. Editor?
He's saying it's a fair indictiment, and doesn't really care to take the time to decide whether that is FAIR to Rumsfeld or not?
Speaking of fishwrap...
The Post and the N.Y.Times scream about their First Amendment rights when they routinely publish classified top secret national security information. They jabber about not "gratuitously" offending Muslims with a cartoon but defend an "artist" who displays a crucifix in a jar of urine by asserting his "freedom of expression". I don't have the time or space to enumerate the endless list of hypocritical PC nonsense they publish. Suffice it to say that there's one set of rules for terrorists and haters of America and another for them.
They are free to offend? Then why do they so often support taking that freedom away from the military, employers, communities that might want a religious display at Christmas, coaches that say a prayer, and on and on.
This thing is damn insulting to our collective intelligence.
"In an era when the Web allows readers to read only commentary that they agree with"
As the preeminent aite, I think the articles and commentaries we read are close to 50/50 left vs right. Just we destroy the left with critiques.
My email to the author (pardon my use of your first line):
You work too hard. All you really needed to say was, "Showing respect for terrorists and disrespect for America is the Washington Post way."
If the offending cartoons had been aimed at Christians, you would have been falling over yourself to be first to publish them. That's because you know you can get away with it. A few angry letters, a small boycott, a boost in sales due to the controversy, and you're on to the next news cycle. After all that fuss, you can even make your own news with comparisons between the Christian community and the Taliban. More controversy, more sales, no worries.
But these Muslims, they'll burn down your building. They'll hunt you down. And you're nothing but a coward, hiding behind some newfound respect for one religion - one that just happens to be particularly dangerous to criticize. When there's real opposition out there, you suddenly consider that there's no need to be offensive.
You feign a heroic stand for our first amendment rights, but only when there's no need for actual heroism. Your "convictions" are a farce, and most of us - that is, those who don't pay for your rag - can see right through you.
Journalists are different from you and me. They have protected constitutional status and a duty, a duty mind you, to stay aloof and above the petty concerns of mortals.
This is why it is a publicly espoused journalistic value to let US troops walk into an ambush. It is also why the story of Woodruff is gaining such attention. The deaths or wounds of mere common folks, of mere volunteers, these are as the death of insects. No, I'm too harsh. To journalists the loss of a member of the military is more like the death of, say, a pet dog, or a useful farm animal. But even that loss will do to beat Bush with, to disparage the United States with.
Now the wounding of a journalist, THAT'S a horse of a different color! Some pompous newsie delivered himself of the opinion that Woodruff's wounding, "brought it all home" to him. The clear implication is that he doesn't live where you and I live. He makes his home where nobody ever votes Republican, stays faithful to one and only one spouse as long as they both shall live, or decides that having a parent around 24/7 for the kids is more important than self-fulfillment at the expense of the kids' health and safety. They live where one puts oneself in harm's way not to defend one's country, but in hopes of finding material with which to condemn one's country, whille puling down a nice salary, incredible perks, and lots of face time with the TV camera
They are different from you, they are better than me. We are lucky they deign to soil their hands with the task of telling us what to think. We should be grateful and shut up.
Tune in next week, when I tell you why hookers, excuse me, I meant sex workers, are more moral and sophisticated than you are.
Yeah. This is a real laugher. The WaPo won't publish the Muslim cartoons though they are the cause of a huge news story. Yet the they take every opportunity to devalue the lives of US soldiers.
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.