Posted on 02/08/2006 2:15:24 PM PST by abb
By E&P Staff
Published: February 08, 2006 10:15 AM ET
NEW YORK Editors across the country continue to face difficult decisions surrounding the cartoons featuring the prophet Muhammad, which have set off rioting abroad. Few American papers have published the cartoon so far, although several have shown them on their Web sites or provided Web links.
Here is a look-around:
* Four top editors at the New York Press, a weekly in New York City, resigned Tuesday after being ordered, they claim, to pull the Danish cartoons -- from an issue that centers on the dispute. Editor in chief Harry Siegel charged that the Press leadership "has suborned its own professed principles. For all the talk of freedom of speech, only the New York Sun locally and two other papers nationally have mustered the minimal courage needed to print simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons that have been used as a pretext for great and greatly menacing violence directed against journalists, cartoonists, humanitarian aid workers, diplomats and others who represent the basic values and obligations of Western civilization."
* National Public Radio decided not to even post a Web link to the cartoons. "The bottom line for me is that the cartoon is so highly offensive to millions of Muslims that it's preferable to describe it in words rather than posting it on the web," said NPR News executive Bill Marimow, the former editor of The Sun in Baltimore. "In this case, I believe that our audience can, through our reports -- on radio and the web -- get a very detailed sense of what's depicted in the cartoon. By not posting it on the web, we demonstrate a respect for deeply held religious beliefs."
* At USA Today, "we concluded that we could cover the issue comprehensively without republishing the cartoon, something clearly offensive to many Muslims. It's not censorship, self or otherwise," said Deputy World Editor Jim Michaels.
* According to an article in USA Today, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said that he and his staff concluded after a "long and vigorous debate" that publishing the cartoon would be "perceived as a particularly deliberate insult" by Muslims. "Like any decision to withhold elements of a story, this was neither easy nor entirely satisfying, but it feels like the right thing to do."
* A California paper, the Daily Press in Victorville, became one of the few to publish a Muhammad cartoon--the one with the prophet with a bomb in his turban--today, with its editor in a column knocking The Associated Press for refusing to distribute the images. Another small paper in Cheyenne, Wyoming, also published two of the cartoons, and also complained about the AP stance.
* Eric Mink, commentary editor at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, explains in a column today: "If a government controls what can and cannot be distributed, it’s called censorship. If a media outlet decides for itself what to include and exclude from its products — whether for journalistic or economic reasons, out of respect for possible sensitivities of some readers or concern about possible impact on its community — it’s called editorial judgment.
"Here in the United States, at least two major newspapers in the last week — the Austin American-Statesman and The Philadelphia Inquirer — chose to publish one of the original Danish cartoons to illustrate stories about the controversy and violence. Other papers, including the Post-Dispatch, have decided that the images aren’t necessary to communicate the story. It’s called judgment."
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
When they published the Abu Gharib pictures, there was the possibility that enraged muslims might be inspired to target and kill US soldiers, so they published them as soon and as often as they could.
Journalists are super valuable.
I guess Bill figures his house is easy to find.
Perhaps we can persuade George Clooney to wear some t-shirts with these cartoons on them in some public appearances.
In the interests of supporting artistic freedom of expression, of course.
Anyone remember when "Fahrenheit 9-11" was in theaters and all the theater owners that decided not to carry the film were attacked for censorship?
Publish the pics, lets see if the table cloth heads riot here.
"Eric Mink, commentary editor at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, explains in a column today: "If a government controls what can and cannot be distributed, it’s called censorship. If a media outlet decides for itself what to include and exclude from its products — whether for journalistic or economic reasons, out of respect for possible sensitivities of some readers or concern about possible impact on its community — it’s called editorial judgment. "
No...it is called COWARDICE AND HYPOCRISY!!
Pssst! They're published on the internet!
So the media knew the Muslim world would be enraged at the Abu Graib pictures and published them anyway since the outrage would be directed at our soldiers.
And now the media won't publish cartoons because the Muslim outrage would be directed at them. The media. Who, collectively, seem to be cowards.
Great cartoon MA!
Their hypocrisy is on full display. Too bad the old media is no longer needed.
My take is that we should do everything in our power to piss the islamofacists off!
Which I think is the legitimate arguement to NOT print the pictures. They are not just targeting diplomats, they are moving onto other targets. The problem is they won't use the excuse of not printing them to protect the soldiers. It may have been the one and only excuse I would have accepted from them.
That's a new one for NPR. Respect? They don't know the meaning of the word.
When they published the Abu Gharib pictures, there was the possibility that enraged muslims might be inspired to target and kill US soldiers, so they published them as soon and as often as they could.
Journalists are super valuable.
Absolutely right on the money! Best summation I've seen anywhere!
(steely)
THEY ARE COWARDS. They talk a big freedom of speech talk but when it comes to the real thing they flake out. How many of these periodicals published pictures of "Christ In Piss" when it was controversial. I'll bet all of them did.
THEY ARE COWARDS.
And what would those "beliefs" be? That Mohammud never actually had a bomb growing out his head?
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.