Posted on 02/03/2006 5:05:38 PM PST by Pikamax
U.S. Newspapers Decline to Publish 'Muhammad' Cartoons
By Joe Strupp
Published: February 03, 2006 3:50 PM ET
NEW YORK As a collection of controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad circulates online and through some European publications, prompting numerous acts of violence abroad, nearly all U.S. newspapers have chosen not to publish the cartoons.
Although most American papers have covered the issue, with many running Page One stories, most contend the cartoons are too offensive to run, and can be properly reported through descriptions. While some have linked to the images on the Web, others are considering publishing one or more of them next week. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Inquirer has complained that The Associated Press should at least distribute the images and allow members papers to make the call.
"They wouldn't meet our standards for what we publish in the paper," said Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, which ran a front-page story on the issue Friday, but has not published the cartoons. "We have standards about language, religious sensitivity, racial sensitivity and general good taste."
Downie, who said the images also had not been placed on the Post Web site, compared the decision to similar choices not to run offensive photos of dead bodies or offensive language. "We described them," he said of such images. "Just like in the case of covering the hurricanes in New Orleans or terrorist attacks in Iraq. We will describe horrific scenes."
At USA Today, deputy foreign editor Jim Michaels offered a similar explanation. "At this point, I'm not sure there would be a point to it," he said about publishing the cartoons. "We have described them, but I am not sure running it would advance the story." Although he acknowledged that the cartoons have news value, he said the offensive nature overshadows that.
"It has been made clear that it is offensive," Michaels said when asked if the paper was afraid of sparking violence or other kinds of backlash. "I don't know if fear is the right word. But we came down on the side that we could serve readers well without a depiction that is offensive."
The Los Angeles Times sent this statement to E&P this afternoon: "Our newsroom and op-ed page editors, independently of each other, determined that the caricatures could be deemed offensive to some readers and the there were effective ways to cover the controversy without running the images themselves."
The cartoons, which include one of the Muslim prophet wearing a turban fashioned into a bomb, have been reprinted in papers in Norway, France, Germany and Jordan after first running in a Danish paper last September. The drawings were published again recently after some Muslims decried them as insulting to their prophet, AP reported, adding that Dutch-language newspapers in Belgium and two Italian "right-wing" papers reprinted the drawings Friday.
Islamic law, according to most clerics' interpretations of the Quran, forbids depictions of Muhammad and other major religious figures -- even positive images.
Tens of thousands of angry Muslims marched through Palestinian cities, burning the Danish flag and calling for vengeance Friday against European countries where the caricatures were published. In Washington, the State Department criticized the drawings, calling them "offensive to the beliefs of Muslims."
Still, most American newspapers are not publishing the cartoons, sticking mostly to the view that they constitute offensive images. "You want to make sure that you are sensitive to the cultural sensitivities," said Mike Days, editor of the Philadelphia Daily News, which may run the images next week, but remains cautious. "I think you want to do it in a way that makes sense. I am not so sure the average American understands what the controversy is about, the use of the images of Muhammad."
Days said the paper might run the cartoons along with comments from experts in Muslim law so that the reasons behind the controversy are clear. It appears the New York Sun is the only American daily to run the images, according to The Washington Times.
Several newspapers, such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, have either placed the cartoons on a Web page or linked to a Web site that has them. The Inquirer, which has not run the images in print or on its site, has a Web link to a Belgium news page where the cartoons can be seen.
"We are taking it on a day-by-day basis, depending on the story," said Anne Gordon, Inquirer managing editor. "We have run an image of someone looking at a paper with the cartoon. We feel strongly that if the story takes another turn, we are prepared to publish."
Gordon criticized the Associated Press for not distributing images of the cartoons to member newspapers. Although Gordon understands the concerns about sensitivity, she said AP should allow each paper to make up its own mind.
"It is not AP's role to withhold information from news cooperative members," Gordon said. "They are a co-op and we believe they overstepped their bounds to independently withhold the cartoon. It is not their decision to make independently."
Kathleen Carroll, AP executive editor, said the news cooperative has long withheld images it deemed offensive, such as photos and video of beheadings. "We have a very longstanding policy of not distributing material that is found to be offensive," she said, adding that the Inquirer was the only newspaper she knew of that had specifically requested the images from AP. "These images have not met that standard."
But Carroll also agreed with some other editors who said the cartoons did not add to the news coverage in a major way. "If people want to find them, they are easily found," she said.
Doug Clifton, editor of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, agreed that the offensive nature precluded running the cartoons. "It has become a part of great angst and I don't see any reason to run it, you can just describe it," he said of the cartoon images. "I don't see a need to insert ourselves in that fight."
Clifton recalled his time at the Charlotte [N.C.] Observer years ago, when the paper ran an image of a controversial piece of artwork, in which a crucifix was placed in a glass of urine. "You knew you would get an outpouring of anger," he recalled. "If I thought there were very good editorial reasons for running it, we'd run it. But I don't think there are."
But Clifton said his paper will likely place a link to the images from another site when it runs an editorial on the issue Saturday or Sunday. "They will have the option to see it if they choose," he said about the Web readers. "The [print] newspaper reaches a much, much broader audience."
I'd like to pay the proper "homage".
They won't publish any RAGHEAD cartoons but they run all kinds of trash about Bush Cheney and our GI's. WHAT A---HOLES.
A New Zealand blogger (he is conservative by New Zealand standards, which is roughly corresponding to US's moderate conservative side) has remarked on US media that:
"They wouldn't meet our standards for what we publish in the paper," said Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, which ran a front-page story on the issue Friday, but has not published the cartoons. "We have standards about language, religious sensitivity, racial sensitivity and general good taste."
Downie of the Wahsington Post is the same a**hole who approved publication of a cartoon mocking a American soldier who was a double amputee.
I guess he is only sensitive to Muslim and anti-American interests.
Half of those among us are willing dhimmis. I never thought such vast swaths of American society would surrender with virtually no fight. Now I know how the French resistance felt (maybe I'm a bit melodramatic, but it's getting discouraging to see how much leftism has eroded our country).
I think the editors here detect a subtle difference between Moslem fanatics and Christians ~ namely, that it's not like the Christians will ever flay them alive, flense their bones, and toss them into the fields to be eaten by wilddogs ~ however, they can't count on that with the Moslems.
Interesting how they won't publish muslim stuff but they don't have a problem putting in cartoons, etc. mocking Bush/Cheney/Troops/etc. etc.
No problem posting a cartoon of a military combat amputee though.
State Department agrees with the US newspapers.
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.
Note: Radio NZ = government owned radio network. Roughly like the US's NPR
Listerner = New Zealand Listener magazine. Generally considered the de rigeur intellectuals' magazine. Predictably Ann Arbor left-wing type and a bit like New Yorker, but may look moderate on the issue of race because it is something that the NZ Left is hypocritical.
NBR = National Business Review. A bit like WSJ and the most conservative NZ-based publication published in this country (excluding the NZ edition of Reader's Digest but it is American headquartered). RINO by US standards except on trade.
Radio NZ: http://www.radionz.co.nz/
NZ Listerner: http://www.listener.co.nz/
NBR: http://www.nbr.co.nz/
The print media refuses to show cartoons about the FASLE PROPHET Moohawmed, in deference to the moon worshipers.
Protests have never stopped them from slamming Jesus Christ and Christians.
I guess there becoming "sensitive" and "tolerant".
Hypocritical cowards...
Kind of like a life and times of Mohammed. This is also part of the religion. What I like about Islam is it is hard to misinterpret. - Tom
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 833: Narrated Abu Talha : The Prophet said, "Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or there are pictures."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 834: Narrated Muslim:
We were with Masruq at the house of Yasar bin Numair. Masruq saw pictures on his terrace and said, "I heard 'Abdullah saying that he heard the Prophet saying, "The people who will receive the severest punishment from Allah will be the picture makers.'"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 835: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar :
Allah's Apostle said, "Those who make these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them. 'Make alive what you have created.'"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 836: Narrated 'Aisha:
I never used to leave in the Prophet house anything carrying images or crosses but he obliterated it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 837: Narrated Abu Zur'a:
l entered a house in Medina with Abu Huraira, and he saw a man making pictures at the top of the house. Abu Huraira said, "I heard Allah's Apostle saying that Allah said, 'Who would be more unjust than the one who tries to create the like of My creatures? Let them create a grain: let them create a gnat.' "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 838: Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle returned from a journey when I had placed a curtain of mine having pictures over (the door of) a chamber of mine. When Allah's Apostle saw it, he tore it and said, "The people who will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection will be those who try to make the like of Allah's creations." So we turned it (i.e., the curtain) into one or two cushions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 840: Narrated 'Aisha :
I purchased a cushion with pictures on it. The Prophet (came and) stood at the door but did not enter. I said (to him), "I repent to Allah for what (the guilt) I have done." He said, "What is this cushion?" I said, "It is for you to sit on and recline on." He said, "The makers of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it will be said to them, 'Make alive what you have created.' Moreover, the angels do not enter a house where there are pictures.'"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 841: Narrated Abu Talha:
Allah's Apostle said, "Angels (of mercy) do not enter a house where there are pictures.'" The sub-narrator Busr added: "Then Zaid fell ill and we paid him a visit. Behold! There was, hanging at his door, a curtain decorated with a picture. I said to 'Ubaidullah Al-Khaulani, the step son of Maimuna, the wife of the Prophet , "Didn't Zaid tell us about the picture the day before yesterday?" 'Ubaidullah said, "Didn't you hear him saying: 'except a design in a garment'?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 842: Narrated Anas:
Aisha had a thick curtain (having pictures on it) and she screened the side of her i house with it. The Prophet said to her, "Remove it from my sight, for its pictures are still coming to my mind in my prayers."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, Book 72, Number 843: Narrated Salim's father:
Once Gabriel promised to visit the Prophet but he delayed and the Prophet got worried about that. At last he came out and found Gabriel and complained to him of his grief (for his delay). Gabriel said to him, "We do not enter a place in which there is a picture or a dog."
I agree; the MSM is just being a bunch of spineless, hypocritical cowards.
This is one of the offending cartoons. Maybe they'd feel better if we flushed it down the toilet?
It's probably for the best that U.S. newspapers not publish these cartoons. Publishing them would not accomplish anything worthwhile, and certainly not benefit the national interest.
I don't like radical Islamists anymore than anyone else on FR. But there's no point in inflaming them unnecessarily, particularly when there's so little to be gained from it.
And the dinosaur takes one more step out into the tarpits...
It was a given that the US newspapers would not publish these cartoons. Publishing classified info is more their speed.
There, I fixed it.
Ah, but a crucifix in a jar of urine, that's just fine for our media.
PC cowards, pure and simple....
What they are attempting is to force their belief off on you. Amazingly, or maybe not so amazingly, you turn out to be an easy target.
You will love prayers 5 times a day.
How about showing solidarity so that the Danes aren't out there manning the ramparts of free speech alone?
Isn't it amazing how they'll bash the heck out of Bush without apology but when it come to this, mum is the word. Maybe they're busy thinking of more Christian bashing shows and headlines.
I have had it with sand maggots, real or surrogate.
I will not have killers defining for me what is offensive.
Are there any Freeper printers?
I am ready to contribute $100 for any project intended to get 1 million of these cartoons printed and distributed to the "free" newsracks. It wouldn't take many more contributions like this one to make the plan a reality.
They want a challenge?
Let's give them one.
Yes, but television companies can air stuff like Britney Spear's Cruci-fixins role. Christians get angry and threaten to boycott, and we get vilified. But Muslims don't even need to threaten violence (it is just somehow feared or expected), and they get respect. Hypocrisy.
I recommend stamping the cartoons on our "aid" to the Middle East. See if they're too proud to pick it up then. And posting it over all border crossings and airport terminals.
This is the only one I've seen. I want to see the others as well.
bump
There is no devil but Allah, and Mohammed is his porkchop.
BFD! Who needs/reads newspapers anymore, anyway. The cartoons are all over the internet. No need to close the barn door now, PC-wimps; all the animals are outside. Freedom of speech, at algore-invented speed.
Actually, if you dig deep enough, you'll find that Downie, along with all the other placaters, are really scared sheep-less regarding this issue. To prove my point, if those who didn't like the crucifix-in-urine display started beheading people, you'd see those types of 'art-work' displays getting yanked from museums and such. Some people are just too afraid to stand up for freedom of speech.
Does anybody have a list of media outlets - newspapers and networks - who showed Robert Mapplethorpe's work where he put the crucified Christ in urine? I've been googling like mad, but have been unable to find this out. Personally, I don't think there is an exact correlation in that Mapplethorpe's work was intended to insult and denigrate Christians and Christianity and the Mohammad cartoons are making a legitimate point. However, if these same media are the ones who showed that Mapplethorpe garbage then they are showing themselves to be cowards.
I guess he is only sensitive to Muslim and anti-American interests.
Downie is one butt head that deserves a barrage of Freeper e-mail.
What horses pa-toot.
LVM
Ohio newspapers ran them a lot. Start with Canton, Columbus, and Cincinnati.
Oh, please. Do a cost/benefit analysis of this. If the cartoons are published in U.S. newspapers, what has been accomplished? Does it really benefit the national interest to do so?
However, you are right about them always being inflamed by something or other. But there's no point in picking fights over things of no importance.
Here's a slideshow. In reality, pretty mild stuff: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/Jyllands-Posten-Cartoons/?imgIndex=1&autoShow=6
What was accomplished by running the Christ dipped in urine? These papers are cowards. They are afraid for their lives. They have nothing to fear from Christians and so insult them with impunity.
This tells the jihadis that they have the US msm totally cowed, of course. Shame on our cowardly press!
Anything that provokes a response that reveals the Muzzies' true nature is OK with me. All the tutt-tutting and chin-tugging by the American press is just a smokescreen to hide their cowardice.
"""We described them," he said of such images. "Just like in the case of covering the hurricanes in New Orleans or terrorist attacks in Iraq. We will describe horrific scenes." ""
So let me get this straight... a cartoon is as horrific as a terrorist attack??? The post carries a cartoon of a US soldier missing all of his limbs, but that's tasteful and non-horrific? What a bunch of a-holes. And they wonder why the media in general is losing credibility.
You're correct to condemn the blasphemous "art" from the early 1990's and Christian-bashing. And you're on the money about the newspapers being hypocritical on religious sensibilities.
But that still doesn't mean that publishing the cartoons is a good idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.