The huge story today in journalism is the agonizing over whether or not to run the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad that have triggered riots, violence, and some deaths across the globe. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of US news outlets have chosen not to. With a big assist from Jim Romenesko's Poynter site, here's some of the thinking.
In response to a question from a listener, about whether NPR would post the cartoon, its ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin posted this response from acting vice president of NPR News Bill Marimow:
As you know, Jeff, 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.
Here's a USA Today piece reviewing various newsroom debates on the subject. New York Times executive editor Bill Keller has this to say:
New York Times editor Bill Keller said that he and his staff concluded after a “long and vigorous debate” that publishing the cartoon would be “perceived as a particularly deliberate insult” by Muslims. “Like any decision to withhold elements of a story, this was neither easy nor entirely satisfying, but it feels like the right thing to do.”
Meanwhile, here's the story about the staff of the alt-weekly New York Press resigning en masse when a decision was ultimately made not to run the cartoons in that paper.
This has become a wrenching debate in most newsrooms, including here at the Boston Phoenix. Five days ago on this blog, I posted an item called "Sensitivity or Censorship." At that time, I agreed with the pro-publishing views of Nelson Sigelman, the news editor of the Martha's Vineyard Times , who had written:
"When freedom of the press and freedom expression are under fire as they are now across Europe and the Mideast, it's no time for major US news organizations to play it safe. By any standard these cartoons are a legitimate part of a news story that raises many troubling issues."
Frankly, I've changed my mind, mostly after spending a few days speaking to Muslims about this.
Of course, there's an argument for publishing the images that have triggered serious international turmoil. But my big problem with the cartoons is not that they are offensive to the thousands of violent and dangerous protestors and rioters around the globe who make up a small percentage of the Muslim population. It's that they're so viscerally offensive to the other 99 percent -- including people clearly and unequivocally condemning the violence. When I became convinced they were deeply disturbing to virtually every practicing Muslim -- and that the media could still report the story without literally displaying the cartoons -- it seemed a matter of basic decency and respect not to show them. A First Amendment right doesn't mean it's always right to exercise it. The news media engage in plenty of self-censorship on a variety of issues for a variety of reasons -- including the recent 48-hour news embargo on the kidnapping of freelance reporter Jill Carroll in Iraq.
Ultimately, after intense discussions, the Phoenix reluctantly chose not to publish the cartoons. Here's the paper's editorial explaining why and including fear of retaliation as a key factor. I don't think there's a newsroom in America that saw this as anything other than a painful exercise in balancing competing values and mandates.