Signe-fyin'
I thoroughly enjoyed tonight's panel with Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Signe Wilkinson, John Hammer and Geoff Brooks at Guilford College about what Wilkinson described as "those damned pictures."
Incredibly (well, not really) we agreed on more than we disagreed in a discussion that included the Danish cartoon controversy.
But I stood firm in my belief that for all the precious importance of freedom of speech, it carries with it a responsibility to use that right with discretion and sensitivity. And that a cartoon that might not be offensive to me may still offend someone else.
I added that try as I might, I still make occasional bad calls in choosing which cartoons to publish.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Although there's a clear double-standard here--Muhammad gets preferential treatment relative to Jesus--the decision not to publish the cartoons as editorials is perfectly defensible on the grounds that they're objectionable. Where the N&R failed crucially is in failing to publish them as news. Once they had become the center of the biggest story in the world, you should have published them to inform your readers what the protests were about. Your defense that you could describe the pictures in words (or that people could get them on the internet) was pretty sorry, in my opinion. If the press is going to conform to Sharia law, then what good is it in ensuring a free society?
Posted on November 17, 2006 2:50 AM
Brian, I don't remember us publishing cartoons of Jesus either.
As for my explanation being "sorry," the descriptions of the cartoons in words were very complete and accurate, I thought.
And again, we make content decisions, based on taste, tone, community standards and other factors every day.
Posted on November 17, 2006 9:11 AM
On your web site the day the story broke, you had Kanye West dressed up as Jesus. If you're seriously suggesting that you wouldn't have published a cartoon of Jesus had it spawned that kind of violence, I think you're kidding yourself. That you wouldn't have published it as editorial cartoon on its own, I accept.
If you think a verbal description of a cartoon is the equivalent of the actual cartoon, you're just wrong. (Signe Wilkinson could have explained this to you.) There's just no way that language can ever "completely" represent a visual image. If it can, I suggest that you summarize all of your editorial cartoons and save the syndication fee.
Posted on November 17, 2006 11:07 AM
Well, I didn't run that photo. I'm in charge of editorial; that was a news decision that JR could address better than I.
Posted on November 17, 2006 11:17 AM
No you didnt run the photo but your paper did. Like John Edwards in a Wally World! BUSTED!
Posted on November 17, 2006 12:33 PM
That's true. But the news and editorial departments are separate. They wouldn't have made the call on the Muhammad cartoons. I did. I choose the cartoons, JR does not. And I didn't make the call on Kanye as Jesus. That's JR and his folks' call to make.
Posted on November 17, 2006 12:51 PM
Understood and appreciated
Posted on November 17, 2006 2:41 PM
That's my whole point: it should be a news decision when it becomes the center of a news story.
Posted on November 17, 2006 4:50 PM