Publish or Not? Muhammad Cartoons Still Vexing U.S. Editors (Dinosaur Media Psychoneurotic Alert)

Editor & Publisher ^ | Feb 8, 2006 | Staff

[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)

[VOA]

bump

[R.W.Ratikal]

Newspaper editors need not worry about the cartoons that have upset Muslims. It's yesterday's news now. Muslims are not a factor in the modern world so whatever offends them is not important.

However when they break a civil law in protest over an imagined insult they should go to jail.

[AmericanChef]

-"It's not censorship, self or otherwise," said Deputy World Editor Jim Michaels.-

Here's the definition of censorship: Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.

Again, as always, lefties are using words inappropriately.

[Wasanother]

They ALL must show the cartoons on the same morning on the front pages! It's the news and that's why they're called "newspapers". DO IT CHICKEN LIVERS!!!

[ArmyTeach]

Also, making the decision not to print or cover specific items or issues is indeed a form of propaganda, in this case favoring Muslims.

[TravisBickle]

I actually agree with Eric Mink, that it is NOT censorship, but editorial judgement. However, it is a judgement made of fear, not of any concern about being offensive. For example, if the cartoon depicted Jesus in the same fashion, would the Post-Dispatch make the same decision?

[dynachrome]

The Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Colorado, published one of the cartoons yesterday on the editorial page. Large size. (It was the "stop, stop we have run out of virgins" one)

[Cindy_Cin]

Excellent point~! I had forgotten how much crap the "media" gave those private businessmen about not showing Mike Moore's slander film! Which by the way is now used by Al Queda (spelling?) as a propaganda tool~
Thanks again to the American left

[Cindy_Cin]

Exactly
Just more exposure of the complete 2 faced justifications of our "enlightened, sensitive" media hacks!

[Cindy_Cin]

You can almost smell the RAT in Democrat~ media

[penelopesire]

"Also, making the decision not to print or cover specific items or issues is indeed a form of propaganda, in this case favoring Muslims."

They sure are not afraid of stirring up the cauldron of irrational Islamic hate,are they?! They published all of the Abu Graib stuff and made up other stuff to INFLAME THE ARAB world! I think they are just too afraid of that rage being directed at them! COWARDS..the lot of them.

[penelopesire]

It is the press's fears that are censoring them. It has nothing to do with 'editorial judgement'...unless of course what they mean by that it is in their best interest and 'judgement' not to have their heads lopped off by an enraged barbarious Islamist! And you betcha, if this cartoon had been making fun of Christ...every LSM outlet in the country would have run it!

[Cindy_Cin]

I was angry enough about the media hypocrisy, but when the Abu Gharib comparison was made, it really drove the point home....!@#$%^&*()_!@#$%^&*(
Media Scum!

[Alouette]

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.

So they dug into their archives and illustrated an article about the Moslem "cartoon rage" with Virgin Mary made out of elephant dung.

[dighton]

If they publish the pictures, there is the possibility that enraged muslims may be inspired to target and kill journalists, so they won't do it.

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.

Very harsh and quite correct.

[colorado tanker]

These MSM cowards are even more spineless than the French.

[cwb]

---

Our media is a joke. These people aren't just hypocrites...they are provocateurs. While they won't publish these cartoons for fear of further offending Muslims, they had none of these same concerns when they not only published the photos of Abu Graib for months on end...but sued for the release of more to be published, even after knowing the anger it fed.

Just like the flushing-Koran story, the media knew damn well that this would inflame Muslim emotions; of course, "those" angry emotions would be aimed at Bush and the military, unlike the cartoons, where the media would take the brunt of the criticism for daring to publish them. These people have no problem endangering the lives of those fighting for us...but Heaven forbid that anger be turned towards them were they might be threatened.

And you simply can't dismiss the media's silence on this...because they know that further outbursts of violence, especially in this country if they print these cartoons, would damage any sympathy they have garnered against Bush and the WOT. The media just can't afford to have Muslims looking bad if it in any way helps the Bush Administration.

[knews_hound]

Bloggers, doing the heavy lifting for the MS since 2002 ©

To see the cartoons, mash here.

Cheers,

knewshound

[muawiyah]

The WarshPost (the local rag) has its main printing plant down the street from here. It's within walking distance of 5 mosques ~ hear that, FIVE MOSQUES!!!!!

They didn't publish the cartoons.