To: The Mainstream News Media
From: A reporter-turned-educator who is still a news junkie
Re: Unfunny cartoons
All across the world, in newspapers and blogs, people are talking about offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad and the violent reactions they are sparking.
This is prompting some good questions but also some weak ones. Let's look at a few of them:
1. Do Muslims have no sense of humor?
That question is asked repeatedly in this thread. To which I reply: You are assuming that a) the cartoons are funny and b) Muslims share your sense of humor. If Muslim newspapers ran cartoons of Jesus Christ that were offensive how would Christians like it if, when Christians protest, they were asked why they had no sense of humor. Think back to how angry some Christian groups were over The Last Temptation of Christ, Dogma and any other artistic attempt to look at Christianity from a different perspective.
2. The media is just exercising its freedom of expression. What's wrong with that?
The fact that the media CAN do something, does not mean it actually has to do it. This situation where other newspapers - and many blogs - feel obligated to print the offensive cartoons simply because they can, reminds me of car chases. I grew up in Southern California where the television news programs were super competitive. And they all had helicopters, which they would use for traffic reports. So what does this have to do with the cartoons? Well, the thinking of the media in both cases seems to be "We CAN do something, so we must." Thus every time there was a car chase on the freeways, be it OJ Simpson or someone in a tank or whatever, the choppers would fly above the chase and film it and the channels would broadcast it live. This is news? This is the best way to use the technology and air waves?
So I ask: Are there not better, more important stories that these newspapers can be covering? Sure, publications have found a way to offend people and get a reaction and thus more news, but is it really worth all this space and attention?
3) How can we not cover the protests since it's news?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RedTard
When did christians ever burn down embassies or otherwise go nuts when peope made artwork of jesus in a jar of piss? Did they kill the artist in the street?
These cartoons make a good point and it is reinforced by the reaction of the masses. I would love to see them reprinted here to make a better judgement of their content. Stop apologizing for the absurd reactions of others.
2 - Megan
Well, maybe "RedTard", you would understand why Muslim people are so mad about this, if you knew more about their religion. Islam prohibits Muslims from artistically recreating images of their God. It's not like when you walk into a Christian church and see images of Jesus and the cross and (occasionally) all of the saints plastered everywhere. These images are so thoroughly placed into public consciousness that even non-christians have been created their images for centuries now. They've become less the private property of christians and more of a symbol.
To Muslims, who have never seen recreations of their god or prophet, these comic strip images are not images of Muhammed or Allah. They're just stereotypes of Arabic people. People aren't allowed to draw offensive pictures of black, white, or asian people, so why are Arabic people still allowed to be treated as second-class citizens?
It is because some of them have done horrible things? Or is it because in most countries, we are never taught about Islam and the Arabic people? Is it because, (unless you have a real interest in other cultures) the easiest source of knowledge is the media which here in the United States feeds on images of Muslim violence because they know horror sells? There's no possible way all an entire culture does is throw rocks and call for the death of americans. We should demand to see the full picture before passing judgment. Racism comes from ignorance. And what we prove with those cartoons is exactly how ignorant we are.
3 - RedTard
All that cumbayah crap doesn't amount to much when a woman is being buried up to the waist and stoned to death. It doesn't matter to the hundreds of thousands of Sudanese who are being starved, raped, and murdered by bands of Muslims. It doesn't matter in Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, or anywhere else their violent religion has spread. When offered the chance to vote, they vote militant Hamas. When polled in Britain who has taken them in and provided them government support they could never dream of in their homeland 25% still sympathised with the London attacks that killed their fellow countrymen. It is you who need to wake up to reality, all religions are not created equal.
4 - RJ Elliott
"People aren't allowed to draw offensive pictures of black, white, or asian people"
Yes, they are, at least in the US. The First Amendment allows it.
5 - John Spivey
Just some facts:
Hypatia ripped to death by the Christian mob.
Crusaders riding through rivers of blood as they kill all the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Muslim, Christian and Jew) at the behest of Pope Urban.
Torqemada and the Inquisition.
The Salem witch trials.
Thousands of women burned in Europe for witchcraft.
Galileo and the Pope.
The Christian defense of slavery.
The Christian cultural genocide of Native Americans.
The Christian defense of the servitude of women.
Maybe religions are created equal.
Education is a good thing. Let's move past all this.
6 - Zach
RJ: allowed by law, perhaps, but not by ethical standards. Can you imagine opening up a modern newspaper and seeing a drawing of a black man as stereotypical and offensive as the caricatured Arabs which are routinely printed in cartoons? Or turned on the TV and seeing a minstrel show? I'm all for the First Amendment, and I would be vehemently against the idea of *banning* these cartoons. But the fact is, they shouldn't have even been *drawn*. They were products of ignorance, callousness and hatred on the part of the artists, and even if they had the legal right to draw them (and the papers the legal right to print), that doesn't mean Muslims and others like myself don't have every right to take offense.
Rights are important, but they aren't everything. Whatever happened to standards?
7 - Scott Butki
Thanks for the posts and feedback.
8 - Maamoun
Welllll, As a muslim, i would repeat what "Megan" has said "Racism comes from ignorance. And what we prove with those cartoons is exactly how ignorant we are."
I live In UK , and I know what freedom of speech means, but in the same time, i know when this freedom converts to offense on other people, yes its dears, we know what is freedom of speech and we have it, but we dont direct it to be a weapon against anybody.
Im living with english christian guys, we live in peace and we like each other, and they are my best friends in UK, you know why? because they know what islam is, and i know what is christian is, otherwise, i repeat what Megan has said.
Thanks.
9 - Scott Butki
Thanks.
Good point.
I just want to make clear that I am in way advocating the violence by Muslims over the cartoons.
At the same time, though, I hate what I am seeing - people using their reactions to support previously hold stereotype.
They wanted a reaction to these cartoons and they got them.
It's akin to yelling fire in a theater and then complaining about the stampede and people getting trampled on.
10 - larry
actually i enjoyed minstrel shows.mr.tambo and mr bones. that was a different, the actors appeared in blackface. as did eddie cantor and larry parks. i have read about the communist witch hunts in the 30 s and40s. alot of authors,playwrights and actors were blacklisted for their work. examples are, lillian hellman, dalton trumbo even grandpa walto. i beleive the u.s. has experienced censorship at its worst. it finally ended with sen joearthy. alot of careers were ended.
11 - Elvira Black
You make some great points, Scott, but I have to say I'm still torn on this issue.
Several months ago, a blogger posted a link to a site that provided video clips of what Muslim clerics had to say about the Jews. Some of it would make Hitler proud. This was not presented as humor or satire, but as fact. I think stating that the Holocaust was a myth and presenting it as "known fact" is egregiously offensive. So I think there is a definite double standard going on here. And I don't recall any of my fellow Jews taking to the streets over it.
As you point out, our media can, in a sense, become a protagonist in some of the news it reports, especially nowadays. But sometimes this can be a good thing, I think--as when scandal and government ineptitude are uncovered and addressed--or even just plain old intellectual dishonesty (the recent Smoking Gun expose is one example). As a result, dogged media coverage can often make a positive difference, and can and does cause a public reaction directly related to its reporting.
Republishing the cartoons seems to be a moot point in terms of inflaming the protests. These were already well underway after the original publication of the cartoon. The way I see it, bloggers and websites who are republishing them are saying that those who are trying to threaten and intimidate the west (witness some of the ultraviolent, threatening wording on the protester's banners) will not cow us.
We are also currently engaged in a war on terror, and the burning of embassies, etc certainly looks like terror to me.
But yes, I think the cartoons were gratuitiously offensive. But I also think that our media does adhere to certain standards, and as a general rule eschews racial and ethnic slurs.
Very thought provoking--thanks for this!
12 - RogerMDillon
"Can you imagine opening up a modern newspaper and seeing a drawing of a black man as stereotypical and offensive as the caricatured Arabs which are routinely printed in cartoons?"
Yes, I could and what would happen is people would call the paper and demand an apology and the artist to be fired. If the demands weren't met, then people would lobby the paper's advertisers and get them to pull their ads.
Look at "The Book of Daniel." Christians pressured stations and advertisers and NBC pulled the show because it wasn't worth the hassle.
Should they have burned down television stations, smashed car and shop windows, and randomly attacked places to show their rage instead? That's what you are advocating.
What I don't understand is why their rage isn't isolated with the paper that printed the cartoons in Denamrk. Muslims are attacking building in Lebanon and Syria. Nor is their rage restrained to Denmark. They set fire to the Norwegian embassy in Damascus and have been heard chanting against Jews and America.
Now the cartoon is offensive, but rather than prove the artist wrong they are perpetuating the sterotype and giving it creedence. Imagine what would have been accomplished if a peaceful demonstration had taken place where the men just sat in the road and tied up traffic rather than resort to mindless violence.
I'll take everyone's first amendment right over someone's arbitrary standards and if an artist finds your review of his work ignorant and callous, make sure to leave your address so he can ransack your home.
13 - Alan Kull
Scott, Nice post. These cartoons were not funny and were aimed at humiliating muslims. It just reflects bigotry and racism on the part of the dutch newspaper. This isnt an issue of freedom of speech. The editor deliberately commissioned those cartoons and printed them. Im glad our state department has voiced the statement they did calling the cartoons offensive.
And if there was any doubt on the intntions of the danish newspaper, here as an article from today's guradian that points out that the same newspaper declined to publish some Jesus cartoons telling the author that readers would find it offensive.
"Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today. The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten
Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."
14 - Shark
A few thoughts:
"Offensive" is in the mind of the offended.
"Offended" is a state of mind -- an abstract, internal concept; it doesn't exist beyond that.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
I thought at least a few were "funny" -- but then again -- unlike MOST "____ religious fundamentalists" (fill with your favorite wacky personality cult) ...I HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR.
I'm less afraid of racists, etc. who explicitly declare themselves in public -- and more afraid of those who hide behind masks and/or operate like dangerous invisible phantoms.
=======
Some things I find "offensive":
Gas guzzling cars.
Overpaid CEOs.
An administration that lied to take us to war in Iraq.
Commercials aimed at children.
Cell phone users.
Tax breaks for the ultra-rich.
jeez.... must stop... so many to list... so little time...
========
SHARK TAKES THE QUIZ:
Q: Where is the line between exercising the freedom of expression and provoking just to get a reaction?
A: Draw yer own line. Just don't force it on me. (...and sometimes "provoking a reaction" can have positive effects. I'm a big fan of Dada art. And when brain meets stimulation, ya just never know what might happen.)
Q: Isn't this controversy just leading to more ugly divisions and stereotyping of Muslims?
A: As with many radical fundamental Christoids, "they" are often to blame for the ugly divisions -- and often produce their own "stereotypes" for public consumption.
Q: If this is just about selling newspapers then how does that explain why so many bloggers, including a bunch here at BlogCritics, are writing about it too?
A: C'mon, we're bloggers; we have nothing to say, but we do it articulately!
Q: Lastly if the cartoons showed Jesus Christ blowing up a house in Iraq would so many take the same position on those cartoons?
A: I would. You should see my homemade Christmas cards!
15 - Nancy
It seems to me muslims are intent on humiliating themselves by taking to the streets & resorting to violence every time they don't like something or feel their noses are out of joint. No other group elsewhere in the world puts on this kind of violent temper tantrum every time something happens that they don't like; it's only muslims, especially those from the middle east & northern africa: an election doesn't go their way, hey, haul out the guns & shoot up the town; don't like what the papers are printing, burn down the embassies & call for the slaughter of innocent persons from the same countries. Muslims have a bad rep in the world today, and with reason, and it's a rep they've built for themselves, all by themselves, by the violent & barbaric behavior of a few, while the rest sit by and twiddle their thumbs, then get outraged because they're smeared with the same behavior. The muslim attitude is irresponsible, puerile, and revolting. Perhaps instead of always trying to claim it's someone else's fault, they ought to take a good hard look at themselves, as to why they've gotten a worldwide reputation for being unable to live with civilized people elsewhere in the world.
16 - gonzo marx
ok...time fer a Thought or two...
first: Freedom of the Press means just that..freedom...yes they have the Right to be Idiots and print moronic shit...freedm is a dual edged sword
second: after keeping Quiet and looking at a bunch of stuff surrounding this, it appears that a few things stand out
a) it is completely feasible that the cartoonists/editors WANTED just the reactions we are seeing, that they deliberately were as Offensive as possible, to bring about a huge reaction...so they could ge ttheir FAR "right" extremists views validated...
look around, in every country you see folks from the extreme Factions either supporting this Foolishness, or exhorting thier followers to rip shit down...
b) the Muslim leaders are usig this a a wonderful excuse to incite rioting and hatred far beyond what the Incident calls for...you cannot seriously expect any Rational person to believe that the vast majority of the people rioting and calling for "death to (fill in the blank, but start with Danes)" to have actually READ a Danish newspaper?
puh-lease
c)publicity and circulation...if nothing else, this tiny Dane paper is now world famous, and the circulation will increase with both the world wide extreme "Right" and the fundamentalist Islamics ...both just looking for an excuse to fling shit at each other
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
17 - bhw
Scott, in response to one of your questions in the post about the newsworthiness and value of the cartoons:
The Danish newspaper editor requested depictions of Muhammad after a Muhammad biographer said he couldn't find an artist willing to do illustrations for his book. Artists who are afraid to draw illustrations -- not political cartoons, but illustrations -- of another religion's icons = NEWS.
Here's the newspaper editor's explanation of why he requested the cartoons and why no apology or retraction is forthcoming:
He said that he had to stand his ground because, as in the Salman Rushdie affair, freedom of speech was being threatened. “There is a lot at stake. It would be very naive to think this is only about Jyllands-Posten and 12 cartoons and apologising or not apologising.
“This is about standing for fundamental values that have been the (foundation) for the development of Western democracies over several hundred years, and we are now in a situation where those values are being challenged,” he said.
“I think some of the Muslims who have reacted very strongly to these cartoons are being driven by totalitarian and authoritarian impulses, and the nature of these impulses is that if you give in once they will just put forward new requirements.”
Yeah, what he said.
18 - bhw
Crap, forgot the link.
19 - Dave Nalle
Scott, the cartoon of Mohammed at the gates of heaven turning the suicide bombers back was genuinely funny AND made a real political point. I've gotten people to laugh hard just by presenting it as a verbal joke.
The one with Mohammed with a bomb in his turban is kind of weak and derrogatory. But if we believe in free speech we can't really draw lines. We have to take the good with the bad. Arab papers have certainly published things just as bad from their perspective.
Dave
20 - Purple Tigress
I believe the first comment was about "Piss Christ" American photographer Andre Serrano. Serrano was raised Roman Catholic. So "Piss Christ" was a work by a Christian (Catholic) in a Christian country. The dynamics are different.
There was also the dung-covered Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili that caused an uproar in NYC when it was displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Ofili is British-born and black.
I do not know the religion of Ofili. He has a different feeling about elephant dung and often uses it in his work. He supposedly parodies black exploitation movies and gangsta rap in his work.
There's a difference between artists such as these men. Perhaps they meant to shock and offend much like the performance artists who shoot themselves or practice self-multilation. This is not the case with the political cartoons.
I do recall some protests from minorities when political cartoonists made some drawings that were considered derogatory. For instance, when the Japanese Americans won reparations, they protested the publication of the cartoon that had a short buck-toothed man with coke bottle glasses bowing to a judge. The protests weren't violent protests, but many Japanese Americans have memories of internment camps and imprisonment and thus are more cautious.
I do believe that in America, we have instances when Doonesbury has caused American papers to self-censor. Further, we've recently seen TV stations self-censor a television program because it dealt with Christianity. So censorship out of good taste or community interest isn't uncommon.
The key element here, is more likely the oppression of minorities. In Los Angeles we've had two race riots (Watts Riot in 1965 and the Los Angeles Riots in 1992) and another incident (Zoot Suit riots in 1943). Perhaps it would help to understand how European nations oppress the Muslims, Arabs, Turks and Persians if one wants to understand the cause of the rioting.
21 - Scott Butki
Excellent points. Yes if people freak over Doonesbury then how do you think they'd react to a drawing of Jesus shooting, say, an Iraqi?
22 - larry
ihave read some books showing some of the cartons in the early 1900s. they werent very flattering. i like doonesbury. i have noticed that some newspapers print doonesbury on their editorial page. is there some legality e. i also wonder if all of the people demonstrating (burning and dancing on flags tearing hair) have even seen these cartoons. i havent and i have looked for them on the web.
i
23 - Zach
"Should they have burned down television stations, smashed car and shop windows, and randomly attacked places to show their rage instead? That's what you are advocating."
Wow, Roger, is that really what I was advocating? News to me!
24 - Scott Butki
There's two issues here and people are conflating it into one and that's dangerous.
Do the newspapers have the right to print these?
Yes.
Do they need to run them?
No.
Just because you have the freedom to do and say something doesn't mean you have to do it.
A newspaper - let's say the Washington Times - could do a front page cartoon tomorrow showing George Bush as Jesus Christ raping Saddam Hussein.
Do they have that right?
Sure.
Could they expect outrage?
Sure.
Would people differ on whether it was funny? Oh yeah.
But we can also guess that some will be outraged and find it offensive.
25 - gonzo marx
and i contend that the Press has the Right, Duty and Obligation to be outrageous and offend
Editorial policies differ...and vive le differance'!
however, as i stated above...i do think this was deliberately baiting the muslim population in order to incite violence
and THAT is usuaully against civilized Law
one would hope that Issue woudl be brought up in a danish court, to be settled, or at least get the facts out
Excelsior!