News-Record.com

"No one is telling us we cannot publish". "We The Media" just won't.

I've heard that before.

I note that at the end of the post, you're identified as "The Editor of the News & Record". Here's my ID:

*Dr. Johnson is an Asheboro Pediatrician and former National Health Service provider who was fired after she intervened to help a critically ill newborn at Randolph Hospital and reported the incident to medical peer review. Hospital administrators subsquently used the legal system as a weapon, and made mincemeat of the laws pertaining to discovery, "non-profits" and public disclosure. No one in LOCAL or STATE law enforcement - OR THE "FREE" PRESS - has held them accountable.*

The N&R doesn't consider the story "civically relevant".

"...because, as a rule, we don't readily publish content that we know full well will offend many readers. When we do, there must be a compelling civic or journalistic reason."

50% of Guilford voters voted Republican in the recent presidential election. So, you're insulting at least 50% of Guilford voters when you run anti-Bush/anti-conservative cartoons. Where's the "civic purpose" in that?

"Because most schools of Islamic thought forbid any representation of the Prophet Muhammad, the insult is carried by the portrayal of the prophet more so than the actual political message of the cartoon."

I didn't realize the goal of the press was to not offend Muslims. Catholic doctrine forbids abortion, among other things. That hasn't stopped your paper from endrorsing pro-choice candidates.

Are you sure you want to stake out the position that if a religion is against something, you should respect them in your reporting? I think you are coming dangerously close to picking sides if you are. You are essentially saying "we didn't print X because it is against the beliefs of religion Y." You then end up making value judgements as to which religions and their beliefs are worthy of your respect, and which are not. Suppose Islam was against interracial marriage or some other issue that the N&R is obsessed about. Would you be as careful then in respecting the religion?

I think the whole press potrayal of this story has missed the forest for the trees because the cartoon and not the irrational violence has become the story. But if you are going to focus on the cartoon, why don't you just admit that the reason you didn't print it was because you were being politically correct? Trying to explain it away now is only digging you into a deeper hole. I doubt you would give the same leeway to a Christian fundamentalist or orthodox Jew position that you (the supposedly "objective" news department that is not supposed to have positions but obviously does by what you have written here today) don't agree with.

What a tangled web we weave when at first we try to deceive.

John:

No matter how you dress it up, the decision to not publish the cartoon goes against the entire history of newspaper publishing in America.

We don't measure our decisions based on the whims of foreign mindsets. Muhammad was a man. To deify him is foreign to American democracy, sans any religious window dressing.

Jeffrey Sykes

*Jeffrey Sykes is a News & Record reader who finds it surprising how John Robinson varies his moral judgments based on how it fits his purposes at the time.

"50% of Guilford voters voted Republican in the recent presidential election. So, you're insulting at least 50% of Guilford voters when you run anti-Bush/anti-conservative cartoons."

Another astounding leap in logic, jaycee.

From my own informal queries, I know that many people who voted for Bush have no particular love for him or for conservatism, but may have found him the lesser of two evils, or preferred his personality and charisma over Kerry's. It would be no personal affront to them, nor would they be offended, by editorial content that is critical of him or his administration, because they have little vested in it.

Unless you are willing to stipulate on behalf of every individual included in that 50%, you are extrapolating to absurdity.

You consistently weaken your own arguments with slapdash thinking of this sort. Why not take a few extra minutes to think about what you want to say before you say it in a way that doesn't hold any water?

Unless you are willing to stipulate on behalf of every individual included in that 50%, you are extrapolating to absurdity

Unless the N&R can prove the same with saying they did not wish to insult the Muslims in this community then their argument is absurd as well and certainly does not hold water.

So Chewie, your argument for the N&R and attack of jaycee is just as invalid.

Meanwhile, while we're splitting hairs over "journalism" in products that are becoming more and more useless on a daily basis, the wonderful members of the "religion of peace" have done it again:

Islamic demonstrators have damaged the US embassy in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta.
The group was protesting over Danish cartoons lampooning Islam's Prophet Mohammed as well as his depiction in a sculpture at the US supreme court in Washington.

Read the whole article Here

The sculputure has been on the supreme court building since 1935!!!

So, I guess the question is: will JR run that sculputure image in the newspaper? Things that make you go "Hmmmmm..."

Here's my prediction: he might. But, he won't run the cartoons -- still. His logic: the Supreme Court sculpture wasn't done to intentionally offend anyone. (The logic will of course be lost on the "reglion of peace" protesters who are such deep thinkers and obviously care what logic is applied to things...)

All of your blogs today appear to be making the same statement in different words Mr. Robinson. You are trying to justify making your newspaper into a written sermon best reserved to the churches and other social organizations. Can you not understand the responses you are getting (also in different words but essentially the same meaning)? We are all telling you to report the NEWS, all of the pertinent NEWS and leave the moralizing and moral judgements to others.

Yes, I understand all of the responses, Ms. B. You want all the pertinent news. We just disagree on how pertinent seeing the actual cartoons are to understanding the news story.

Let's suppose the following: a war erupts out of the various skirmishes surrounding the cartoons. The Muslim Martyr Brotherhood of Divine Vengeance against Infidel Cartooning assumes a central role. Their uniform includes the bomb cartoon with the red circle and slash. Meanwhile, the West rallies under a flag showing the cartoon. Millions are killed, and, after the final battle, Bush gives his victory speech against the background of the original, offending cartoon.

According to John Robinson's logic, the paper would refuse to reproduce the cartoon in every instance. Because it isn't Rotarian enough. Or "compelling" enough. Whatever. In any event, the media's job to inform the public turns out to be not very compelling after all. Above all, we musn't offend. And we can inform them indirectly, by merely describing the cartoon. (Not a bad idea, really, if applied consistently.) We'll tell you what it looks like, and if you really want to know, there's another paper in town with a sense of journalistic obligation. And we'll tell you ALL ABOUT the story of that paper publishing the cartoons. Just don't expect to see them here, so that you can judge for yourself.

This scenario illustrates what has already happened. At some point long since passed, the cartoon become the focus of the main political story in the world--i.e. the negligible portion of it outside the borders of Guilford County.

I suppose you can come up with all sorts of scenarios to test our decision. You also can decide what you think the real reasons are for our declining to publish the cartoons. However, please read what I've written about it first. The decision we made applied to the cartoons when we made it. It's possible that this may change as events change, for all the reasons I gave.

If actually seeing the cartoons helps you understand what is happening better, I respect that. I'll believe you if you say that your eyes were opened when you found the cartoons on the Internet or the Rhino. But I happen to believe that a description serves the purpose without the insult. It fulfills our obligation to inform. I don't believe many people are confused by what the cartoon looks like even if they haven't seen it.

I think in light of the volatility of world events and the like, that at least common sense reigned here. We should take more stock in what the editor did; he looked beyond the article and looked at possible consequences and decided, now was not the best time".

With rights come responsibilities.

As an aside, I thought it was interesting that Muslim clerics exaggerated cartoons in order to inflame their own people beyond what was originally published.