Should the cartoons be published in the U.S.?

While much of the controversy over the cartoons that depict Muhammed have focused on Europe, the journalistic debate hasn't stayed on their side of the Atlantic. The global community is forcing U.S. editors to consider the question of how to best cover the story.

National Public Radio decided not to link to the cartoons from their Web site. Here's the explanation of Bill Marimow, acting vice president of NPR News:

As you know ... my thinking about this issue has changed throughout the day -- as I've read more about the subject and discussed it with our colleagues. So, the bottom line for me is that the cartoon is so highly offensive to millions of Muslims that it's preferable to describe it in words rather than posting it on the Web. In this case, I believe that our audience can, through our reports -- on radio and the Web -- get a very detailed sense of what's depicted in the cartoon. By not posting it on the Web, we demonstrate a respect for deeply held religious beliefs.

Jerry Ceppos, former executive editor of the San Jose Mercury News, thinks Muhammad Caricatures Should be Published:

No, I wouldn’t run the cartoons "to show support" for the Danish paper, which the BBC says was the motivation for many European newspapers. I'd run them because they're bg news and help explain a religion that we desperately need to understand.

In my ethics class Tuesday, most students seem to feel that publishing the cartoons is unnecessarily provocative, and that U.S. editors should consider the consequences of their actions before publishing. Others argued that the cartoons, in context, are newsworthy under the circumstances and that readers/viewers will want to see them. Linking to another site seemed to be one way to provide readers who want to see them with the opportunity to view them, without publishing them directly.

As communication transcends national boundaries, religious centers and geographical barriers, these types of considerations will need to be made more frequently. Because language is not a barrier for understanding a cartoon, perhaps this will become a more dominant form of communication in the future? [Addendum: Of course, visual communication has been a dominant form of communication for a long time, as described in today's New York Times: " A startling new lesson in the power of imagery"

What may be overlooked this time is a deep, abiding fact about visual art, its totemic power: the power of representation. This power transcends logic or aesthetics. Like words, it can cause genuine pain.

Ancient Greeks used to chain statues to prevent them from fleeing. Buddhists in Ceylon once believed that a painting could be brought to life once its eyes were painted. In the Netherlands in the 1560's, pictures were smashed in nearly every town and village simply for being graven images. And in the Philippines, enraged citizens destroyed billboards of Ferdinand Marcos.

To many people, pictures will always, mysteriously, embody the things they depict. Among the issues to be hashed out in this affair, there's a lesson to be gleaned about art: Even a dumb cartoon may not be so dumb if it calls out to someone.

Framing the cartoon controversy

Conflict continues today in response to 12 editorial cartoons depicting the seventh-century founder of Islam, Muhammad, originally published in a Danish newspaper in September, 2005.

Many Westerners frame the issue as one of free speech, citing the importance of freedom from any type of censorship. Others, primarily Muslim but not all, depict the issue as one of responsibility and respect, calling the publication of the cartoons "cultural terrorism." What is the responsibility of the media in this case?

Here are excerpts from a conversation on the Guardian website, a newspaper in London: Should the cartoons have been published?

Muslims who are protesting don't comprehend the European tradition of free speech, critical debate and vigorous satire. Freedom of speech is more important than religious sensitivities.
Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society

Free speech comes first and foremost - there is no automatic right to be protected from possible offence, whether on the basis of an individual's superstition (ie, Islam, Christianity etc), or choice of football team.
Posted by Paul J on Guardian Unlimited website

In the UK, we've developed a tolerant tradition where Christianity can be criticised and ridiculed. It's part of our culture - seen in Monty Python and numerous stand-up comedians. It doesn't mean we hate Christians, it means it's an ideology that can be deconstructed and challenged. Islam is not a privileged exception.
Posted by Jo on Guardian Unlimited website

These cartoons are offensive. They're not about freedom of speech. Nobody's disputing that there is freedom of speech in Europe. It's about exercising restraint and sensibility. Editors must have known that enormous offence would be caused to Muslims. One of the unfortunate outcomes will be that extremists are best placed to benefit from the situation. These caricatures are gross.
Inayat Bunglawala, Muslim Council of Britain

We should show some respect, because through respect you get common civilisation. Papers shouldn't do or not do something because of how Muslims might react. They should feel responsible and sensitive. You have the right to sneeze but you don't have the right to sneeze in my face. Be prepared for a backlash.
Ajmal Masroor, imam, spokesman for Islamic Society Britain

As for the sacred cow of "freedom of expression", principles are only good so long as they have good applications, I could hardly think of a worse application than what has happened here. The only thing it has done is it has strengthened bigots and hardliners on both sides. Virtually all the papers that published the wretched images were rightwing in nature. Who benefits from xenophobic paranoia and distrust? The right wing of course.
Posted by 56000xp on Guardian Unlimited website

Muslims are an easy target in Europe, even though there are more people who understand Islam and respect it and would be prepared to defend Muslims in their community. How are you going to stop jihad and suicide bombers and extremists if you allow Islam to be derided in this way? Bashing Islam has become an industry.
Baroness Uddin, House of Lords

Are there other ways to view this issue? What can we learn from this that would inform how we do journalism in communities that are both intensely local and global at the same time?

Enterprising student news

This program on a student radio station at Swarthmore is a brilliant illustration of how students can produce news that uses Internet tools (Skype and podcasting) in a way that allows them to produce meaningful, insightful stories.

By turning to people who have credibility about the subject because of direct experience that everyday folks can relate to, they are providing another perspective on the war in Iraq that many larger news outlets are missing.