|
|
I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem with this, since The Philadelphia Daily News didn't. |
Posted on 02/19/2006 9:05:55 AM PST by Jefflg
By Mike Fancher
Seattle Times executive editor
Why hasn't The Seattle Times published the Danish cartoons that sparked an international crisis?
Readers who have asked that question see it as central to a complicated set of issues involving free expression, religious tolerance and international conflict. Those issues are complicated, but the answer to the central question is simple. We haven't published the cartoons because we believe they would needlessly and deeply offend a portion of our readers. That is the standard we routinely apply to potentially offensive material, asking ourselves whether there it is a compelling journalistic reason to publish.
The standard applies broadly to language, photos and illustrations. For example, our policy on the use of potentially offensive language says, in part: "The Seattle Times recognizes that racial, ethnic, religious and other slurs are very hurtful to many readers, so we use them in the newspaper only when they are absolutely essential to the reader's understanding.
"In the same vein, this is a family newspaper, and we want to encourage parents to read it with their children, not to have to hide it from them. Difficult subjects are unavoidable in news coverage, but profane and vulgar language almost always is avoidable. Therefore, we apply the same standard as we do with slurs: the language must be absolutely necessary to the reader's understanding."
Images can have even greater impact than words. In the case of highly offensive photographs and images, we use them only in a case where a written description would not suffice for readers' understanding of an important story.
The spirit behind this approach is that most of the time there are thoughtful, sensitive ways to inform readers. Because we respect readers, we are obligated to thoroughly explore those alternatives.
In the case of the Danish cartoons, some readers have said they don't understand the outrage that has led to embassy burnings, death threats and the killing of some protesters. They wonder whether their understanding would be enhanced by seeing the images, but that is doubtful.
"Why would a reader expect to be able to make a ruling on whether the cartoons are offensive if he or she is not Muslim?" asked David Birdwell, Times nation / world editor. "That's the whole point of the story: Muslims see them as blasphemous; others don't."
The essence of the cartoons is easily described in words. They depict the Prophet Muhammad in various ways, including one with a bomb-shaped turban with a lighted fuse. The issue for Muslims isn't just how he is portrayed but that he is portrayed at all.
So our coverage has explored why Muslims generally abhor any depiction of the prophet, as well as the international context in which outrage has become violent.
We've done this extensively in the pages of The Times, and even more so at seattletimes.com.
Some readers have argued that not publishing the images amounts to censorship and a failure to defend press freedom. We don't see it that way. Press freedom means we have the right to publish or not publish based on our judgment of what serves readers.
Birdwell said: "We can run anything we want to, but we have a responsibility to be sensitive to people. Freedom of the press isn't about just running anything you want."
Other readers wonder if we are intimidated by the outraged reactions elsewhere. "That has nothing to do with it in my mind," Birdwell said. "I just don't understand the point of intentionally offending a portion of our readers."
For readers who want to see the images, our Web site offers a link to a reproduction of the original Danish newspaper page. Enabling you to take the step to see them if you choose is far different from bringing them into your home in the pages of your newspaper.
We don't expect that every reader will agree with every decision we make, but we do hope readers see our news judgment as thoughtful and respectful. mfancher@seattletimes.com
Inside The Times appears in the Sunday Seattle Times. If you have a comment on news coverage, write to Michael R. Fancher, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111, call 206-464-3310 or send e-mail to seattletimes.com">mfancher@seattletimes.com. More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
A great Steyn link.
I just sent him a little note myself, sort of wondering what their Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist is going to do now that he can't offend anybody. He can, of course. He can offend anyone who it's politically correct to offend, and he will.
I know this may be blasphemy but is it actually good business sense to publish them ? Many papers may have a strongly liberal agenda whilst posing as mainstream but at some point they do have to sell advertising don't they ? A conservative paper should publish them because they quite clearly would appeal to American values, which their readers would support. But if my (eg The new York Times) target audience is a bunch of unionists , Latte fat cats, students and the prison population would I really irritate them just to promote "free speech" and "solidarity". I mean why does a paper have to apologize for appealing to its audience. And yes papers are there firstly to make money for they're shareholders.
I wonder if SOUTH PARK is going to do an episode on this topic. If they did, I'm sure it would be the highest rated one ever.
Well, it is doubtful.
After all, once people see the images, they will have a hard time understanding how those relatively innocuous sketches could be used as the excuse to engage in murder, mayhem, wanton destruction, and acts of war.
Most westerners just won't get it--especially after they see the cartoons.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
What a bunch of spineless worms. Reminds me of why I consider Seattle to be the southernmost city in Canada.
The article is a week old so he's probably wondering why all the email now.
Kindergarten Press - don't want to be hurtful...nor truthful if it offends...
"The spirit behind this approach is that most of the time there are thoughtful, sensitive ways to inform readers..."
Yep! An islamicfascist terrorist chopping-off a hostage's head is really an instant relief of cranial weight for the infidel.
Re: Piss Christ photo by Serrano:
It is Serrano's deliberate irreverent title that means to offend. The photo is interesting if not stunning.
|
|
I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem with this, since The Philadelphia Daily News didn't. |
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.
