PressEthic

The New York Times coverd the cancellation and touched on some of the salient - at least to me - issues regarding this incident. Artistic censorship, oversensitizing any subject possibly contrarian to an Islamic view and the seemingly passive coverage of violent reaction to recent issues involving Islamists. A second story from the Times, published online after the print edition, covered the German Conference on Muslim Relations in which the council unanimously suggested the opera go on.

It is a hallmark of journalism to be honest and fair in the pursuit, and presentation, of a story. Not giving credence to threats of violence, or the overtly violent reaction of some Muslims in recent months is a disservice to the public and the profession.

Here the coverage by The New York Times seemed balanced. This has not always been the case. When Danish cartoons became the object of Muslim fury, newspaper and television coverage the world over reported about the issue, but did not reprint or show the cartoons for the rest of the world to shape an independent opinion. Understandably, why invite violence? But, journalistically speaking, why cave to pressures about what should or shouldn't be made available to the public when the subject is so integral to the issue?