The U.S. Press and the Mohammed Cartoons

Someone finally made a point about the U.S. media being silent on this whole Mohammed cartoon fiasco and it was the Agence France-Presse (AFP) of all people. The quotes reported by the AFP from U.S. editors were less than encouraging.

Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post: "If I were faced with something that I know is gonna (sic) be offensive to many of our readers, I would think twice about whether the benefit of publication outweighed the offense it might give.”

That’s a reasonable position but Fred baby, don’t you think that defending the freedom of the press and freedom of expression from censorship based upon a religious taboo has significant benefit? I think the quote from France Soir is right on the mark.

“Imagine a society that added up all the prohibitions of different religions. What would remain of the freedom to think, to speak and even to come and go?"

Keith Richburg, the Washington Post’s foreign editor: "This is a clear example where people would find those offensive so we don't see any particular reason to do it just for shock value”

What about for news value so your readers can see the cartoons and judge for themselves whether the furor is justified or not? Since when is a non-believer required to adhere to the restrictions followed by the faithful? I eat pork (or I would if I liked pork) even though the faithful aren’t supposed to, and I drink wine even though the faithful aren’t supposed to, so why can’t I draw, and publish, a cartoon of Mohammed or Jesus or Buddha or Mithras?

Peter Gavrilovich of the Detroit Free Press: "I don't think we would run a cartoon in this newspaper that would be deemed offensive to any religious figure.”

So according to Peter the press should self-censor itself when religious figures are involved. Tell me Peter, you wouldn’t have a problem running a cartoon which might offend a sports figure, an entertainment figure, a politician or just plain folks, so what is it that you think gives a religious figure some kind of special dispensation?

Heaven help us if we ever have to rely on Peter and the Detroit Free Pree to defend the 1st Amendment.

[Erase those last comments. Peter's quote was out of context. What he meant was that cartoons wouldn't be printed on the news pages. The editorial pages would be a different matter. I guess we can depend on Peter and the Detroit Free Press to defend the 1st Amendment.]

The Sacramento Bee was still thinking about it (they tend to be laid back in California) and the New York Times declined to comment.

A while back I commented on the failure of American Journalism to properly inform the American public about the actual standing of evolution within the scientific community (The Failure of American Journalism). I think not taking a stand for free expression on this cartoon fiasco is more evidence that the American press has developed a large yellow streak down its spine.

What the hell ever happened to the press being the most vociferous defender of the 1st Amendment? Are freedom of speech and freedom of the press only ok when it doesn’t offend somebody’s religion? Those whirling sounds you hear are John Peter Zenger and Edward R. Murrow spinning in their graves.