Posted on 02/05/2006 11:22:26 AM PST by LdSentinal
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, day after complaining that The Associated Press should at least distribute the images and allow members papers to make the call, decided to publish one of the drawings on Saturday.
The cartoon was being published "discreetly" with a note explaining the rationale, said Amanda Bennett, The Inquirer's editor.
"This is the kind of work that newspapers are in business to do," Bennett told the AP. "We're running this in order to give people a perspective of what the controversy's about, not to titillate, and we have done that with a whole wide range of images throughout our history...You run it because there's a news reason to run it," Bennett said. "The controversy does not appear to have died down. It's still a news issue."
But the vast majority of other top editors seemed to disagree, for now.
"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.
Anne Gordon, Philadelpia Inquirer managing editor, 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'm waiting for other US papers to do it first. That way it will be harder for them to find and kill all of us."
"I don't see a need to spend the money to hire an armed guard around the clock for the next few years"
anyone else recall seeing the "stop we ran out of virgins" one last year..i thought i saw it in a US newspaper
Thanks for the link.
So these cartoons are what got the Muslims panties in a wad?
Yep.
YES....someone should post the burning Twin Towers with people jumping to their deaths next to these cartoons. Further comments removed prior to posting for fear of being banned...
Running the cartoons is the same as wearing the yellow armbands in Hitler's time. It is something that has to be done in solidarity with Denmark.
I hope every major newspaper in Europe and America publishes these cartoons. They're certainly newsworthy now.
I emailed back and asked if the reason was cowardice. I went on to say that newspapers exist because of the first amendment and he tossed it out. I told him he was in the wrong bussiness and he was the epitome of hypocrisy. I haven't heard back from him yet on the second email...but I'm waiting.
That and the fact that their double standard regarding Christian fundamentalists is rooted in their deep loathing of Middle American culture, which is the crux of these urban elitist's whole sense of identity.
ChickenS#!ts!
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.