In the past month or so more ink has been spilled in American newspapers than blood in Middle Eastern streets over controversial cartoon depictions of Mohammed, some of which that ran in a Danish newspaper last September. Unfortunately, the vast majority of that ink went toward words rather than the images of the cartoons themselves.
Among the American publications ballsy enough to run the cartoons were several college newspapers and the Philadelphia Inquirer. The fallout at the college papers was pretty standard fare: protests, rallies, round tables, letters to the editor. At the University of Illinois, however, the editor in chief and publisher of the paper were suspended, a move that reeks of the same sort of totalitarianism Americans abhor. While students are often subjected to the whimsical responses of fearful administrators, professionals like the editor of the Inquirer Amanda Bennett are able to explain their thought processes. She said, “We're running this in order to give people a perspective of what the controversy's about, not to titillate...” I could not agree any more.
Other newspaper editors have explained away not running the cartoons. They argue that they’ve described them, that they are discriminatory and inappropriate, that they would serve no further purpose. This blatant non-confrontationalism is terrible for the news industry, for reporters and most of all for readers. Though most agree that the cartoons are offensive, everyone is interested in seeing them. To not see the cartoons is to not fully understand their impact or why an entire part of the world has been caught in a maelstrom over them. No one has more responsibility to run these cartoons than America’s newspapers. In the end it is a choice between journalistic responsibility and overwrought, overbearing, over-sensitivity. To not allow the former to eclipse the latter is as offensive as the cartoons themselves.
Tracy Steel @ Mon, 02/20/2006 - 6:51pm
This is a good example of censorship issues that many news organizations face. It's a lot like a tv news broadcast of a bloody, gory car accident, for example. They don't want to offend or disgust their viewers, but at the same time, a lot of viewers will go to another channel if someone else is showing the gory footage. This is where newspapers and tv stations have to find the fine line between offending their public and informing them with as much information as possible. But in this case, I do agree with you and Ms. Bennett--reprinting the cartoons obviously does not mean that the newspaper shares the same views that the cartoons express, they are merely showing their readers what all the controversy has been about, so that readers can see and judge for themselves.