More on Muhammad

The question continues to swirl: why hasn’t the American media published the controversial cartoons of Muhammad that have sparked worldwide rioting?
The answer is pretty simple. Many people find the images offensive. Though critics may be quick to claim that editors will do anything to sell papers, the truth is, American editors are pretty conservative when the possibility of offending readers arises. When’s the last time you saw the f-word in the paper?
The exception comes when editors believe that presenting offensive material is crucial to complete and informed understanding of a public issue. Examples might include the images from Abu Ghraib prison, photos of the mutilated Americans in Iraq or Somalia or the text of the Starr report on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.
Most editors, so far, have not thought the newsworthiness of the Muhammad cartoons themselves outweighed the offense to some readers. The notable exception has been the Philadelphia Inquirer, which published one of the images discreetly with an explanatory note.
Editor Amanda Bennett was quoted as saying: “This is the kind of work that newspapers are in business to do. We’re running this in order to give people a perspective of what the controversy’s about, not to titillate, and we have done that with a whole wide range of images throughout our history.”

6 thoughts on “More on Muhammad

  1. Jim

    It has nothing to do with Bush and Chaney and doesn’t serve the democrat party at all.
    Now about these towelhead cartoons, run them 24/7 it does offend the American people as much as cutting off an Americans head are blowing up people for just working are eating a sandwich for lunch are even killing little children that are just going to school and have never hurt anyone or anything. Maybe its just another double standard that the media has or maybe its because they don’t want to be the next target and they really want them to believe you’re on they’re side. Maybe its because you can report what you wish and it the reason no one reads these rags anymore. Maybe its because Richard Pearl was really they’re friend and they just made a mistake by killing him, are maybe its because your to dumb to see that they hate us all and your children could be the next to die because they do hate us all.
    Its the reason me and my family refuse to watch are pay for anything that leans to the left and it offends us that your daily attacks on a President that wishes to protect us all, even those like you that doesn’t want to offend people that hate us.

  2. peter7394

    The real reason you have not published it is because you are cowards- you are intimidated by the demonstrations obviously stimulated by militant Islamists (read Syria and Iran). Until the so called sensible and moderate Muslims step up and take control of their religion, those who thing beheading and killing women and children will define Islam for most thinking Americans.
    And, by the way, the intimidators are winning the battle over you, Jack.

  3. Jeanne

    The following are excerpts from an editorial in The Nation titled: The Right To Be Offended, written by Gary Younge. The comments by Jim and Peter7394 offer evidence in support of Mr. Younge’s observations.
    Four months after the cartoons were published, Jyllands-Posten’s editor apologized. In the intervening time Muslims engaged in mostly peaceful protests. Several Arab and Muslim nations withdrew their ambassadors from Denmark while demonstrators picketed embassies. According to Denmark’s consul in Dubai, a boycott of Danish products in the Gulf would cost the country $27 million in sales.
    All of this went largely unnoticed in the West, apart from critics who characterized the protests as evidence of a “clash of civilizations.” In their attempt to limit free speech, went the argument, the demonstrators proved that Islam and Western democracy were incompatible.
    Even on its own terms this logic is disingenuous. The right to offend must come with at least one consequent right and one subsequent responsibility. People must have the right to be offended, and those bold enough to knowingly cause offense should be bold enough to weather the consequences, so long as the aggrieved respond within the law. Muslims were in effect being vilified twice–once through the original cartoons and then again for having the gall to protest them. Such logic recalls the words of the late South African black nationalist Steve Biko: “Not only are whites kicking us; they are telling us how to react to being kicked.”
    Nonetheless, the “clash of civilizations” rhetoric framed the discussion for the almost inevitable violence to come. For as criticism mounted, other European newspapers decided to reprint the cartoons in solidarity with Jyllands-Posten. This was clearly inflammatory. Now the flames have reached all the way to the Middle East, where Danish and Norwegian embassies have been burned down. And the violence has been characterized as evidence that Muslims are plain uncivilized.
    […] And so the secularists and antiracists in both the West and the Middle East find their space for maneuver limited, while dogma masquerades as principle, and Islamists and Islamophobes are confirmed in their own vile prejudices.
    The complete article can be found here:

  4. Howard Burkhart

    Is may be just me but all I ever see published is photos that do harm to Bush or our country. Show me that I am wrong. It was cowardly to not show them and then turn around show what some towelhead paper printed.

  5. Courtney Gidts

    I’ve managed to save up roughly $67074 in my bank account, but I’m not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?

Comments are closed.