12 SEC AUDIO 
Posted on 02/11/2006 9:55:28 AM PST by crazyhorse691
Michael Breda was among several readers last week who said The Oregonian should have published the controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
"How can your newspaper run cover stories about the Danish cartoons of Muhammad without reprinting these cartoons so that we, your readers, can decide for ourselves whether or not these increasingly controversial pictures are offensive or not?" he wrote.
Editors at The Oregonian talked about the issue but gave little consideration to publishing the cartoons that have sparked violence across the world. They reasoned that sharing the cartoon was not necessary for readers to understand the story.
"We have every right and an ability to publish the cartoons," says Therese Bottomly, managing editor for news. "But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."
Bottomly says the newspaper could convey the content of the cartoons to readers without also offending readers. She likened it to the newspaper's avoidance of the "N" word; the racial slur can be described without repeating it.
Randy Lemmerman, who oversees the selection of national and international news stories, said the specific depictions in the cartoons aren't necessarily important to understand why they are repugnant to many Muslims. Under traditional Islam interpretations, any depiction of the prophet would be offensive.
After several days of coverage of protests across the world, however, editors did publish a vague reference to a link through which readers could find the offensive cartoons.
That approach troubled Lemmerman slightly. "To me, giving an online link seemed a wink-wink way of doing what I had decided not to do in print," he says. But Lemmerman recognizes that providing the link required readers to make their own choice to view the images, and Bottomly says that the newspaper simply was providing what was widely available through any Web search engine.
Only a handful of U.S. newspapers published the cartoons, including the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Austin American-Statesman. Austin Editor Richard Oppel concluded that readers should be able to see one of the cartoons in print to help their understanding of such an important story. He decided to publish a small version of a cartoon depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban on an inside page, next to an Associated Press story about why depicting the prophet was considered so offensive.
"You can say that we can explain something textually about almost anything, yet we run photos and graphics because they tend to be more specific and more detailed in developing an understanding of what is causing all of this anger," he says.
Oppel says rather than a comparison to the handling of the "N" word, he believes a general comparison might be made to the offensive Nazi propaganda cartoons of the 1930s. He would never publish those cartoons, many of which were anti-Semitic, on the opinion pages, but he could see publishing those in the context of reporting on world affairs.
When considering his decision, Oppel also worried about the precedent he would be setting by declining to publish the cartoon. For years as an editor of newspapers in the South, he has weathered angry criticism from conservative Christians who objected to depictions of Jesus Christ, the cross and religious leaders. "I've tended to defend the right to publish those, especially when there's an intersection between religion and public policy or government," he says.
A week after publishing the cartoon, Oppel had received only three letters and fewer than 20 comments on a reader Web log set up to accept comment.
I admire his newspaper for taking that stand because he thought what he was doing best served his readers' understanding. The Oregonian's editors chose a different path to try to do the same thing.
With the power inherent in a free press, no threats, violence or thuggery should intimidate a newspaper into avoiding providing information for reader understanding.
But the freedom also entails responsibility and editorial judgment. Newspapers routinely make decisions when writing about offensive issues and topics that aim to cause the least offense. It's why grisly details of murders, although known, are not shared in the newspaper. It's why a sexually explicit action or pornography that prompts news coverage won't be described in graphic ways.
I admit that I sought out the offensive cartoons through the link provided by the newspaper. Probably like many readers, I wanted to see what had prompted the protests.
Turns out the cartoons, however, didn't deliver the most valuable information to understand the story. What most helped bridge the gap between my ignorance and understanding were newspaper stories that explored Islam, the historical view of depictions of the prophet, cultural differences between Muslim-dominated countries and European ones, and local discussions by religious leaders.
The newspaper, albeit belatedly, had provided the tool I needed for my voyage of discovery, and perhaps that was enough.
But my own actions convinced me that readers likely needed more to sort out the complexity of the story. That's what a newspaper should deliver.
Michael Arrieta-Walden: 503-221-8221 or toll free from outside the 503 area at 877-238-8221; publiceditor@news.oregonian.com; 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland OR 97201.
Yet they have no problem running cartoons that insult and anger conservatives on a daily basis.
They also have no problem running cartoons that mock and insult Christians and Jews, as do most papers in the USA.
You know, this whole "cartoon" thing amazes me. Probably 60% of the convenience stores in America are owned by Muslims. In such, they sell hard-core porn magazines, roach clips, papers, bongs, beer, wine, etc.
Yet, if they sold these items in "THEIR COUNTRIES" they'd be executed. And then, they get radical over free speech, free press and freedom period. MUSLIMS ARE SUCH HYPOCRITES!!!!
Once again, liberal elitists deciding what their readers/constituents are allowed to see because we're too stupid to otherwise understand.
Or... For once... For once... Main Stream Media will face a consequence for what they print. Apparently they can dish it, but they can't take it!
"Editors at The Oregonian talked about the issue but gave little consideration to publishing the cartoons that have sparked violence across the world. They reasoned that sharing the cartoon was not necessary for readers to understand the story."
Without seeing the cartoons in question, one would imagine them to be much more offensive than they were. Run the toons, let them riot here in the USA. Smoke out the radical muzzis
Bingo
MEMRI.org - Special Dispatch Series - No. 1089 "Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi Responds to Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad: Whoever is Angered and Does Not Rage in Anger is a Jackass - We are Not a Nation of Jackasses" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "In a February 3, 2006 Friday sermon, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, who is head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS), and the spiritual guide of many other Islamist organizations across the world (including the Muslim Brotherhood), exhorted worshippers to show rage to the world over the Danish paper Jylland Posten's publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The sermon was aired on Qatar TV on February 3, 2006.") (February 9, 2006)
News.BBC.co.uk: "CARTOON PROTESTER WAS DRUG DEALER" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "A Muslim demonstrator who imitated a suicide bomber in London to protest over cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad is a convicted drug dealer. Omar Khayam, 22, of Bedford, was jailed in 2002 and released on licence last year after serving half of his sentence for dealing heroin and cocaine.") (Last updated February 7, 2006)
BRUSSELS JOURNAL.com: "'THE WAR IS ON'" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Yesterday (Thursday) Mullah Krekar, the alleged leader of the Islamist group Ansar al-Islam who has been living in Norway as a refugee since 1991, said that the publication of the Muhammad cartoons was a declaration of war. "The war has begun," he told Norwegian journalists. Mr Krekar said Muslims in Norway are preparing to fight. "It does not matter if the governments of Norway and Denmark apologize, the war is on.") (February 3, 2006)
ISLAMONLINE.net: Cairo - "WARNINGS CARTOONS RISK VIOLENCE" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "The blasphemous cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by a Danish daily and other European newspapers are risking to trigger acts of violence around the world, officials and commentators warn." (February 2, 2006)
"Yet, if they sold these items in "THEIR COUNTRIES" they'd be executed. And then, they get radical over free speech, free press and freedom period. MUSLIMS ARE SUCH HYPOCRITES!!!!"
As someone else has pointed out, they are not at all hypocrites. They, unlike us, really believe that they are right and do not believe in freedom or free speech and they say so loud and clear!!
If you're looking for cowards and hypocrites you can find thousands of them in our editorial rooms throughout the land - people who only give lip service to believing in free speech and are only tolerant of the sensibilities of the intolerants.
The lesson from this? Intolerance works!!!
[... Intolerance works!!!...]
Paraphrasing Dr. Laura... To liberals, tolerance means we must embrace an ideology no matter how offensive and deviant it is. Nuh uh. Intolerance works for me too.
It all boils down to this:
1) They are personally afraid.
2) Printing the cartoons would show how uterly insane the response is.
3) It would become increasingly clear (as if it weren't totally obvious already) that this war is simply and purely about ISLAM, and has nothing to do with the "Americal deserved it, and Bush is the proof" delusions of the left.
Printing the cartoons would only serve to prove what utter idiots they are. And they know it.
It all boils down to this:
1) They are personally afraid.
2) Printing the cartoons would show how uterly insane the response is.
3) It would become increasingly clear (as if it weren't totally obvious already) that this war is simply and purely about ISLAM, and has nothing to do with the "Americal deserved it, and Bush is the proof" delusions of the left.
Printing the cartoons would only serve to prove what utter idiots they are. And they know it.
That bears repeating.
2) Printing the cartoons would show how uterly insane the response is.
3) It would become increasingly clear (as if it weren't totally obvious already) that this war is simply and purely about ISLAM, and has nothing to do with the "Americal deserved it, and Bush is the proof" delusions of the left.
Printing the cartoons would only serve to prove what utter idiots they are. And they know it.
Please post this on about 200 other threads. You have found the key to the whole situation vis-a-vis the US left and the US press.
For once they CAN'T blame Bush -- so they are speechless!
Cheers!
I very much doubt if anywhere near 60% of convenience stores in the US are Muslim owned. Many convenience stores seem to have dark-skinned proprietors, but I think most of them are Indians (Hindus, the folks who wrote the Kama Sutra.)
Muslims are not hypocrites, they are satanically arrogant.
There is no hypocrisy involved in insisting that as the adherents of the 'true relgion' they have rights no one else has. Just arrogance.
Conservative Americans are unlikely to do them any harm. I had a disagree with my local student paper a few day ago on this subject. They ran an editorial full of pious statements about "responsibility" and "journalistic progress", but what it boiled down to was they were afraid of the consquences of publication.
It is truly sad that the local student rag can honestly claim to be taking its lead from major media outlets.
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.