This week's column: Battle lines drawn, again, over cartoons
The disturbing violence in protest of a Danish newspaper's publication of editorial cartoons deemed offensive and sacrilegious by many Muslims continues to spread.
The violence did not flare in one burst of reflexive anger. It simmered, then boiled over in a mean, senseless wave of hate and misunderstanding.
On the one hand, the cartoons' attempted message, as I perceive it, was to point out the tragic irony that the killings of innocents would be viewed by some as a pathway to Paradise. That's a more-than-valid observation.
On the other, one cartoon's depiction of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb as his headdress was clearly provocative, especially in light of Muslims' belief that the prophet's image should not be represented in cartoons, period.
Of course, not everybody's a Muslim nor should everyone be expected to adhere to Muslim teachings. But media should try to be sensitive in such matters.
That's not always easy in the rough and tumble world of editorial cartooning, where part of the point is to be edgy and provocative.
Still, we choose not to publish dozens of cartoons each year because we consider them disrespectful, and even mean-spirited, toward Christians, Jews or Muslims. We don't always succeed, but we sure try.
Part of those efforts is a recognition that not everybody thinks as we do.
On a more familiar plane, what might not offend a man might be deeply bothersome to a woman.
And what might be considered totally innocent by a white person could be construed as an insult by someone African American. And so on.
The same certainly holds on the broader world stage, where cultures and nations struggle daily to bridge different customs and beliefs.
We attempt to consider those differences when selecting cartoons.
For instance, we have received a number of syndicated cartoons that have depicted Jesus Christ or a crucifix, or both, in a manner that we considered flippant or sacrilegious. We didn't run them.
Most cartoons that have dealt with sexual abuse in the Catholic Church were not deemed publishable and even the few we did publish sparked a protest from some readers.
Most cartoons depicting the pope have not been chosen for publication. One notable exception last year, picturing Pope John Paul II and Terri Schiavo, angered a number of readers.
Even the Sunday comics have stirred religious controversy from time to time. The strip "B.C." was accused by some critics as anti-Semitic because of the words and images it featured on Easter Sunday 2001, which also was the last day of Passover.
Some felt the strip had endorsed the concept of "replacement theology,'' which holds that with the crucifixion of Christ the Christian church replaced Israel as the chosen in the eyes of God. This doctrine often is associated with anti-Semitic rhetoric.
For the record, "B.C." creator Johnny Hart denied that such a message was his intent. But in an ideal world, we would have preferred not to run that comic.
Unfortunately, the Sunday comics section had been published in advance, as is customary. So we had a choice: to delete two full pages of comics that week, or to run an acknowledgment elsewhere in the newspaper that we recognized the comic could be hurtful to Jewish readers. We chose the latter.
An editorial on the same day said in part that "theological controversies don't belong in the comics, where text is minimal, ideas are inevitably oversimplified and there is a high risk of getting it wrong."
Theological debates do belong, at least occasionally, on the opinion pages. But we would not have published the Muhammad cartoon if it had crossed the transom at the News & Record. Similarly, we rarely run cartoons depicting Jesus.
But I understand why other editors thought differently. I also believe the violent reaction is wrongheaded and counter to the teachings, as I know them, of Muhammad. People have died as a result of these protests.
That said, to publish or not would be our decision, not the government's and not anyone else's. A local weekly, The Rhinoceros Times, chose last week to run two of the Danish cartoons that have offended Muslims.
We still elect not to. We don't see the republication adding to any meaningful debate. The descriptions of the cartoons in words have been more than enough.
That's the beauty of a free society. We in the media have the right to make those calls. But that doesn't mean that we should publish offensive content simply because we can.
We also have the obligation to make our decisions carefully, and responsibly.
Comments (21)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Most cartoons that have dealt with sexual abuse in the Catholic Church were not deemed publishable and even the few we did publish sparked a protest from some readers.
So if you will publish offensive cartoons, but won't in this case what's the deciding factor? The level of outrage the cartoon will produce? Something else?
Posted on February 19, 2006 7:56 AM
David, I think I get it now. It's not "We The People". It's "We the Media".
Then three lawyers and the corporate sponsors have to sign off.
It's gotta be real hard to come to a consensus.
Posted on February 19, 2006 8:30 AM
Dear Lord Mr. Johnson haven't you been pounded enough on this subject?!? Or are you and Mr. Robinson just passing it back and forth to keep us all entertained? A story that we SHOULD read in your paper is provided on Dr. Guarino's blog concerning John Snow's, Sec. of Treasury treasonous action in allowing our major ports to be run by a company based in the Middle East. A country known to harbor terrorists and to fund terrorist activities. These are the people who will be responsible for seeing that our major ports of entry on the East coast are safe.
We have had enough of the cartoons. But we do need more about Muslim activities. The London Times Sunday February 12 edition had a story that we should be reading in this country but won't because it would offend our Moderate Greensboro Muslim population who were outraged over John Hammer's printing of the cartoons but said not one one about the Muslims rioting, killing and burning. I take this as their agreement with what their fellow Muslims were doing. See my blog site for link http://triadblogs/com/BrendaFayBowers/
Posted on February 19, 2006 9:58 AM
Allen, you wrote:
"On the other, one cartoon's depiction of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb as his headdress was clearly provocative, especially in light of Muslims' belief that the prophet's image should not be represented in cartoons, period."
What about the belief of other Muslims and the rest of us that people should not be killing other people in the name of Muhammad, period? Isn't that the idea the cartoon really represents- one of anti-violence? These people are killing in the name of Muhammad, so why should they be offended when his image is linked to violence in a CARTOON? Watch the evening news and you can see real people dying from real bombs in the "name" of Muhammad. So it's okay to use violence in his "name", just don't use his picture...
Posted on February 19, 2006 1:00 PM
P.S. perhaps your paper could use a little more "we report, you decide" instead of catering to the sensitivities of any given group. At some point, you sacrfice reason and will not be able to print anything.
Posted on February 19, 2006 1:02 PM
Amen Sam! You hit the mark dead center.
"we report, you decide"
The statement is hypocritical to say the least in light of recent events.
It would seem they "report, what they decide" and the reader can lump it. Guess the figure that their readers are so ignorant that they won't know the difference.
Posted on February 19, 2006 1:43 PM
At this point, I think a lot of what the N&R editorial board does (i.e. "we don't report because the people we cater to don't want you to decide") is about spite.
It's hardly enlightened or good journalism. And the LAST thing it does is demonstrate "the beauty of a free society".
Posted on February 19, 2006 5:45 PM
Allen, I think this was a great column, and I agree wholeheartedly; and I also think the sentiments contained in the "letter to the editor" signed by the two local rabbis was also on target.
As I mentioned previously, decisions of this type should be made according to the golden rule-- a concept that spans religious traditions. We ought not gratuitously mock, trivialize or ridicule religious groups, core religious beliefs or objects of religious belief. Debate and civil discussion, however, is fair game.
Posted on February 19, 2006 8:44 PM
Just more of the same old excuses for running up the white flag of surrender. The Islamist won this battle and didn't even have to attack this country.
Mark up freedom of expression and freedom speech as POW or MIA. Mark up another victory also to the appeasement bunch. Unfortunately the Islamist won't care one way or the other if you are appeaser Should it come to deciding if you should live or die. You would still be an infidel and their "peaceful religion" say' death to the Infidel.
Posted on February 19, 2006 9:12 PM
To those who accuse us of editorial cowardice, I point out again, as I attempted to in the column, that we ROUTINELY choose not to publish cartoons that we deem offensive or inappropriate.
That happens nearly every day.
Among our considerations:
1. Does the cartoon advance the discussion of the topic?
2. Is is provocative and witty or simply mean and heavy-handed?
3. Is it racist or sexist?
4. Does it contain objectionable language?
The alternative to using editorial judgment and discretion in the cartoons we choose to publish is to use none at all.
Not everyone has agreed with some of our choices of cartoons to publish.
Nor has everyone has agreed with the ones we've chosen not to publish.
We do the best we can. And we'll doing the best we can.
Posted on February 19, 2006 10:44 PM
Among our considerations:
1. Does the cartoon advance the discussion of the topic?
2. Is is provocative and witty or simply mean and heavy-handed?
3. Is it racist or sexist?
4. Does it contain objectionable language?
With regards to the cartoons in question:
1. Yes. More than any other cartoons you have ever published.
2. Provocative and witty. None are mean or heavy-handed. Some even poke fun at the Danes.
3. No.
4. No.
These cartoons are arguably the most famous in the history of the world. If you're interested in the news and giving it to people straight, how can you not publish?
Look, you and JR have got to be struggling with this. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep posting about it. You'd ignore it and hope it goes away.
Posted on February 20, 2006 7:47 AM
"We're doing the best we can."
No. I don't think you are. You're taking the path of least resistance and telling us it's for our own good.
When the N&R editorial board can finally put the legacy of Ethan Feinsilver in perspective, and allow its reporters to venture 30 miles south again . . . when you can investigate stories in Randolph County (as you have done with the Wray case or T&R) . . . stories that people have been PLEADING with you to tell . . . about compelling matters of truth & consequences that are civically relevant . . . then maybe I will buy into "the best we can".
Right now. Notsomuch.
Posted on February 20, 2006 7:48 AM
Actually, we're writing about it because it's still a news story, internationally, and now locally.
Posted on February 20, 2006 8:41 AM
I mean posting on your blogs about your reasons for not printing the cartoons.
Posted on February 20, 2006 8:58 AM
Same reason, David.
Posted on February 20, 2006 9:02 AM
Look, you and JR have got to be struggling with this. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep posting about it. You'd ignore it and hope it goes away.
David if you have ever cornered a possum you would know that for a while they will snarl, spit and posture for a fight but eventually they just rollover and play dead. Possums always surrender just as the N&R has done on this issue. Surrendered to the Policially Correct and Appeasers.
Posted on February 20, 2006 9:19 AM
Mr. Johnson, You may recall that when this whole cartoon thing came up I stated my views emphatically the I feel ALL religions (and their doctrines) should be off limits to derogatory speech. I was shot down big time both here and in blogs around the world that I comment on. However I still adhere to this belief and will not change. This issue is NOT about the silly cartoons. It started out that way and if the Muslims had reacted as all other religions have done when their beliefs are made the butt of jokes then that would have been that and your decision would have been valid and relatively harmless in that it would have been a non-story. The reaction of the Muslims around the world however made this a big story. A story that goes far beyond the depiction of Mohammad and their ban against this . No, this story is now about the Muslim's hate and intolerance against all religions and people but their own kind. Yes, HATE and INTOLERANCE. That is what this story is now about and you now have a duty to get to the core of the story and off the silly cartoons that exposed this threat to world peace. We are now very close to one of these fanatic Muslim countries getting nuclear capability; now couple this with their hate and intolerance for infidels (that’s us!) and you have a real news story. Maybe now you have a reason to print the cartoons along with a story about these violent and vindictive and fanatic people.
Posted on February 20, 2006 11:10 AM
Brenda,it's against the religion which the N&R embraces. Haven't you figured out that they worship at the alter of political correctness and appeasement?
Posted on February 20, 2006 12:17 PM
Yes! I most certainly have figured out at which altar they worship Mr. P., but if we keep hammering at them they just might get our message. And since we keep at it I would guess that we still have hope of helping them develop in to a "real" newspaper.
Posted on February 20, 2006 1:15 PM
[URL=http://ovzgoywo.com]gysgwbao[/URL] zbbqpqzn dcpxftpa http://hbopijcg.com hoqqavyt ywgdorey
Posted on March 6, 2007 1:56 PM
jekhlggo [URL=http://snloekzy.com]bdyrdllf[/URL] mwrarecl http://vidktdtl.com itmjajix rdyhyndy
Posted on March 7, 2007 1:00 AM