We all know that there are fanatics out there. But is this attitude the right reaction? CNN report
the final line of the site says
(my bolding).
Now I agree that it may be the smart thing to do. There are enough Islamic fanatics in the world , and we don’t gain much by intentionally giving them reason to riot.
But wouldn’t it be more honest for the reporters to say that they have “chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for” * not wanting to be murdered like Theo Van Gogh*? Or out of respect for the lessons learned after we published that Korans were flushed at Guantanamo? Or out of respect for not wanting to start a war?
There’s nothing “politically correct” or cowardly about declining to broadcast hate speech. If it was an anti-semitic cartoon, would anyone accuse them of being “too PC?”
With Islam, there’s also the added complication that any depiction at all of Mohammed is forbidden, so even showing the cartoon as a means to cover a story about it is problematic but not unprallelled. Very few news outlets would show pornographic images, for instance, even if those images were part of a news story.
Cable News is a business. Their job is to deliver an audience to advertisers. It is not helpful to them to drive away segments of that audience by offending their religious sensibilities. American Muslims buy cars and eat at McDonalds and use laundry detergent. Those advertisers want to keep that audience, therefore CNN will refrain from unecessarily driving those viewers away. Every substantive part of the story can be reported without actually showing the cartoon, so no journaisltic standards are compromised.
Anyway, CNN stands to lose by showing it. They have a lot of people in the Middle East, and it’s probably a good policy to not show the cartoon because it would endanger them. Is this the reason, rather than out of respect for a religion? Probably. But then, I’m cynical about the Media. But it’s better policy to take them at their word in this case.
Depends on whether you think that the cartoons genuinely are offensive to Islam. Also depends on what your general policy is on publishing things that are offensive to people’s religious beliefs.
I don’t know. I don’t know the people who made that decision and can’t tell if they were being honest or not. (I do kind of doubt that the decision was taken at the level of individual reporters, though.)
I forgot, when Christian conservatives had a tizzy over artist Andres Serrano’s depiction of a crucifix in a jar of urine, did folks dismiss the complaints as “plitical correctness going overboard”?
Why would it be more honest to say that? You are assuming that by saying “CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam” they are being dishonest. It is a very legitimate reason to decide not to show the images. I see no reason to suspect them of being insincere.
If the cartoons are horribly offensive then this is a perfectly reasonably thing to do. It is a common courtesy. It is not “political correctness going overboard” anymore than not letting the door slam into the face of the next person entering a building is “political correctness going overboard”. Just because you should have the freedom to do horribly obnoxious things doesn’t mean you should do horribly obnoxious things.
Arguably. However the same standard could apply to banning flag burning, some people find that offensive.
The problem I have is some of the muslims who are protesting this are the same ones who scream ‘death to america’ and burn the Israeli and US flags. I do not hear calls to end flag burning of Israeli or US flags, or to end hate speech against these countries by the same poeple protesting these cartoons. To give into an attitude of ‘we can attack your sacred artifacts but you can’t touch ours’ is PC and not a good idea. If some muslims want to burn flags or shout death to X,Y,Z (Israel, America, the Jews, George Bush, etc) go ahead. If people want to depict their prophet negatively let them do it too. Mohammed isn’t the only prophet and Islam isn’t the only religion that has ever been depicted negatively. This is no different than Scientology constantly suing everyone who depicts scientology negatively.
That should say ‘Danish flags’ in my post above. I don’t know why I wrote ‘Israeli & US flags’. The point is that both are offensive to some people because some people consider flags sacred, some consider prophets sacred.
I was going to say something similar. A few years back when a New York art museum (MOMA?) hung a painting of the Virgin Mary spattered by animal dung and surrounded by pornographic images, I think I remember seeing the story covered on CNN, including showing the painting. My memory might be faulty; I might have seen it on another news channel, but I think it was CNN.
So I don’t know. Deciding not to show something offensive isn’t necessarily self-censorship; but you also hope they’re going to be consistent with their decisions on which religions not to offend.
We aren’t in a war with Christian terrorists who feel we are trying to uproot and destroy their culture and replace it with our own, so we don’t have to worry about not offending them.
The cartoon shows the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb as his turban. See todays San Jose Mercury news, page 10A “cartoons set off Muslim Tempest”. There is another, with him on a cloud telling a line of dead suicide bombers “Stop! we ran out of virgins!”.
rjung- there is a HUGE difference. Xtians protested, wrote letters, asked for a cut back in funding, etc- all of which is Free Speech. The Muslims are rioting, and breaking into hotels and news offices armed with automatic weapons to find “foriegners”. The difference is- One is legal, the other is not.
The Muslims have every right to be upset- write letters, protest, organize boycotts and so forth. They have no right to resort to violence.
The French have done the expected thing- they surrendered. The only French paper to print the cartoons fired it’s Managing Editor. :rolleyes:
CNN is not the government. This is not a question of state censorship.
The cartoon is offensive to all Muslims. Only a tiny minority of all Muslims ever scream “Death to America” or burn flags (and flag burning is not an expression of religious or racial bigotry).
I understand that the Danish flag contains a cross which is a version of the Christian cross. So burning a Danish flag is in effect burning a Christian religious symbol.
You’re talking about “the Muslims” as if every Muslim in the world is rioting about this. Try to use a litlle smaller brush.
Of course thos Muslims who riot or commit crimes are in the wrong, but the question in the OP was not whether people have the right to commit crimes if they’re offende by a cartoon (of course they’re not) but whether CNN was being “too politically correct” in declining to show the cartoon. Those are two different questions.
Mentioned in another thread, but the right-wing Daily Mail in the UK did not print the images because it felt it would be “disrespectful”. I think that’s perfectly reasonable.
The BBC, however, showed the images on its Newsnight programme, because not to have done so would have been (possibly) to mystify the audience. I think that’s perfectly reasonable too.
The decisions were the ones that can be taken in a free and open society. It’s perfectly legal for me to walk up to you in the street and call your mother a whore, but it’s polite not to.
Gee, Andres Serrano and Chris Ofili are just popping up all over the place! Here’s where I cleared up a few misconceptions about them in a concurrent thread.
I’m never sure exactly how “hate speech” is defined, but I would call it definitely “conceivable” that portraying the Prophet Muhammad as a bomb-carrying terrorist would fall into that category.
Some of them also sent Serrano death threats, which is most certainly not protected Free Speech in a democratic society.
Let us not bask too complacently in the assumption that Christians in enlightened developed countries always react in a civilized manner to things that offend their religious sensibilities.
The only French paper to print the cartoons fired it’s Managing Editor. :rolleyes: