More on those cartoons ...
When I was invited to take part in a Greensboro Public Library panel discussion March 7 on the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in a series of controversial editorial cartoons, I wondered if the furor might be history by then.
Maybe not.
Local Muslims mulled Wednesday night whether they would protest the Rhinoceros Times' publication of a pair of the politically charged cartoons that originally appeared in a Danish newspaper.
Muslim leaders spoke with Greensboro police Wednesday and reportedly also have submitted artwork by local Muslim children imploring the media not to portray their prophet in future cartoons.
Originally, the organizers of the demonstration planned to protest if the Rhino published no additional cartoons that Muslims consider offensive this week. As of this posting, no firm plans had been determined.
Meanwhile, I will participate on the March 7 panel at the Main Library with a representative from the Muslim community, a local cartoonist, a representative of the Carolina Peacemker and William Hammer, publisher of the Rhino.
I look forward to a lively, constructive dialogue.
As food for thought, here's a brief roundup of responses from other newspapers concerning the cartoons:
Public Editor Ted Vaden in the News & Observer of Raleigh:
The News & Observer, like most newspapers in this country, has chosen not to publish them so far. "There are times when we publish material that offends people, but there have to be sound, compelling journalistic reasons for doing that," said Executive Editor Melanie Sill. To this point, she said, there has not been such a compelling news reason to reprint the cartoons in this newspaper. The N&O stories have described the content of the drawings.
In this country, a handful of papers -- the Austin American-Statesman, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Sun -- and a few broadcast and cable TV outlets reprinted one or more of the cartoons that were originally published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten last year. Their reasoning was that a newspaper's obligation to report the news trumps concerns about offending readers or inciting violence. "It is one thing to respect other people's faiths and religion, but it goes beyond where I would go to accept their taboos in the context of our freedoms and our society," Austin editor Rich Oppel told USA Today (which did not publish the cartoons.)
The N&O heard from a few readers agitating to see the offending drawings in their hometown paper. Were these people representative of a larger demand among our readers? To get a sense, I put out a query to The N&O's Reader Advisory Board, a group of about 280 readers whom we survey by e-mail from time to time. (Contact me by e-mail if you'd like to join up).
Of the 154 readers who responded, two thirds (102 people) said don't print the cartoons. Thirty percent (46) said we should publish, and six readers weren't sure.
READ THE WHOLE THING (Registration required)
From Tommy Denton, editorial page editor of our sister newspaper, The Roanoke Times:
The Roanoke Times has determined that, in its editorial judgment, those cartoons were inappropriate for this newspaper.
My colleagues and I discussed the implications of publishing material that was by definition controversial, even volatile. We weighed the competing values that guide journalists every day when they make such decisions: the freedom to do so versus the responsibility for the consequences of doing so.
No doubt, publishing the cartoons for illustrative purposes would erase any ambiguity in readers' minds about the appearance and physical characteristics of the drawings. Seeing the evidence of the cause of so much hostility and violence in distant corners of the globe would give the reader some common basis for evaluating the context of events being reported by the news media.
Yet the cartoons were neither well-rendered artistically nor subtle in their provocative appeal to anti-Muslim bigotry. They sought not to provoke thought or vigorous, good-faith, reasoned debate but to provoke deep-rooted passions.
Whatever illustrative value they may have had, however curious some readers may have been to see for themselves, an editor confronts a balancing test to determine which values, in which circumstances, should prevail.READ THE WHOLE THING
From Marvin Lake, public editor of our other sister newspaper, The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk:
Overwhelmingly, the American print media have refused to publish the offending cartoons, choosing instead to describe them. Ditto for the broadcast media, although ABC did show one of the cartoons during an evening news broadcast, and other networks have shown a blurred version of one or a fragment of a full cartoon.
The Pilot has not published the cartoons in its news section or on the editorial page.
Would we? I’ve learned to never say never. So the answer is: Probably not — at this point.
I know that answer may rile some readers. Like Michael Riley of South Mills, N.C., who e-mailed us that The Pilot, over the years, “has printed numerous cartoons offensive to Christians and even a few offensive to the Jewish religion.” He wanted to know if the American media’s treatment of the offending cartoons amounts to “a double standard or fear,” adding that the matter raises credibility issues.
Pilot editor Denis Finley says he would publish the cartoons “if the right circumstances compelled me to do so.”
For instance? “One,” he said, “would be that it hits closer to home ... What if a business owner displayed them in his or her shop and the shop was torched? I think I would run them. Right now, they are more the topic of intellectual discussion in this country.”
“The best day to publish would have been the first day of the story, but at that time I don’t think we understood how big this story would become,” Finley said. “To publish them on the news pages now would be a little bit Johnny-Come-Lately.”
Finley, who said he doesn’t like a lot of the editorial cartoons we publish but defends our right to do so, thinks that the Muhammad cartoons "would certainly be appropriate" on The Pilot's editorial pages. But he can't say for sure he would have used them originally had he been the chief of the editorial page. Finley has no involvement whatsoever with the editorial page.
Editorial page editor Dennis Hartig, who said he never saw the cartoons, isn't sure if he would have used them when they were originally produced. He does know that he "would not run them now,"” he says, "because the context has changed."
READ THE WHOLE THING
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I applaud the News & Record (and many other newspapers nationwide) for not printing the cartoons. The liberal elites in Europe have demonstrated complete ignorance about why the publishing of the cartoons incited such an overreaction (in our minds). They have framed in the issue as one of "freedom of the press," which in some ways it is, but it is much more than that.
Islam, which reached its height in the Middle Ages, has always been a religion that has felt disrespected. To that "chip on the shoulder" mentality are added two things: the Koran's commands against depicting the Prophet and making fun of the Prophet and the purely theological worldview of Muslims. That mix is what the press in Europe decided to fight, and it wasn't a wise decision.
As Westerners, we can separate religion from politics and economics and other spheres, but Muslims don't make that separation. If the command is to not depict the Prophet, that's the rule no matter who you are or what you believe.
Posted on February 23, 2006 8:53 AM
So what will be your position in this discussion?
Will you be championing the First Amendment which allows The Rhino Times to publish this, or will you be on your knees as an apologist kowtowing to a secular group while your newspaper lets Muslim extremists dictate their policies?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted on February 23, 2006 10:12 AM
I am thinking about starting a new religion called "Bushism". One of the main tenets will be that you cannot depict George Bush in any caricature form or make fun of him in any way. If you do, I will start rioting and killing people. Therefore, I expect from this point forward, I won't be seeing any cartoons with George Bush in them any more, or any references to him (Doonesbury) or else...
Do you see the folly of your position yet?
Posted on February 23, 2006 10:31 AM
Jaycee:
My position is simple: It's both. The First Amendment protects the right to publish; it also protects the right to choose not to publish.
Posted on February 23, 2006 1:33 PM
I think the point is that once you decide to pick and choose what to publish based on sensitivities, you begin to take sides. There is nothing wrong with taking sides if you are up front about it and admit it. I also cannot fault the opinion page too much because they are supposed to take a position, even though I think the N&R ed-board is in denial that they have a consistent Leftward tilt.
The news division on the other hand cannot offer such inconsistent justifications for the cartoon. If JR's position is that he won't run it as "news" (which it certainly is, and in a BIG way) because it offends people, then he is taking a side.
This is not as simple as refusing to run a picture from "Hustler" magazine or something similar that might be deemed offensive. The justification on the cartoon issue has been simply that one group of people don't like the image because of their religious beliefs. By contrast, porn is illegal for certain age groups, so decency is actually state regulated in that instance.
Taking the N&R position to the extreme would require that they stop printing ads that advertise steaks on sale because that offends Hindu's, pork offends Jews, abortion offends Catholics, Hillary offends Republicans, etc. But as Hammer said today in his editorial "We are not Islamic", meaning one does not have to abide by Islamic law if one is not Islamic. That is the essence of freedom of religion AND the press in a free society.
I don't have a problem that JR chose not to print the cartoons. I agree with him that it was probably not necessary to print the cartoon to carry the story. What I disagree with entirely is his justification. The message is that if the "news" is offensive to a group of people, you don't need to see it or know about it. However, offending whole groups of people has not been something that the N&R has been afraid of in the past. It just depends on who the group is. That is an editorial position that does not belong in the news room.
Posted on February 23, 2006 5:32 PM
xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies
xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies xxxfree-videos-movies
freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies freegay-spase-videos-movies
amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur amateur
Posted on August 2, 2006 11:25 AM