The NYT's Public Editor's Web Journal has a post about the reasons the paper won't publish the political cartoons.
“On the one hand, we have abundant evidence that a significant number of people -- some of them our readers -- consider these cartoons deeply offensive and inflammatory.”
If they are concerned about "offensive" content, it's time to stop the presses, turn off the lights, lock the doors, and go home. What could a newspaper publish with complete confidence that it wouldn't offend someone?
“On the other hand,” he continued, “we feel we can quite adequately convey the nature of the cartoons by describing them.”
I haven't read or listened to every news piece about the cartoons but the ones that I have read/heard have described only one or two of them. The cartoon that I think represents these events the best - the cartoonist looking over his shoulder while he draws Muhammed - is one that I haven't heard described in the MSM news stories.
Mr. Keller said some editors proposed publishing “a photograph that shows the front page of one of the European papers on which the cartoon was prominently displayed.” Others, he said, “argued that publishing it in context -- as information readers would find useful in forming their own opinions about the indignant reaction from many Muslims -- was the right thing to do journalistically.”
"Publishing it in context". Isn't that how this all began? The original cartoons were published to accompany an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. (And isn't "indignant reaction" a bit of an understatement?)
(Link via Petrelis Files)
Posted by marybeth at February 7, 2006 02:53 PM News