Free Press Walkout

FREE PRESS WALKOUT:

The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked out today, en masse, after the paper’s publishers backed down from printing the Danish cartoons that have become the center of a global free-speech fight.

Editor-in-Chief Harry Siegel emails, on behalf of the editorial staff:

New York Press, like so many other publications, has suborned its own professed principles. For all the talk of freedom of speech, only the New York Sun locally and two other papers nationally have mustered the minimal courage needed to print simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons that have been used as a pretext for great and greatly menacing violence directed against journalists, cartoonists, humanitarian aid workers, diplomats and others who represent the basic values and obligations of Western civilization. Having been ordered at the 11th hour to pull the now-infamous Danish cartoons from an issue dedicated to them, the editorial group – consisting of myself, managing editor Tim Marchman, arts editor Jonathan Leaf and one-man city hall bureau Azi Paybarah, chose instead to resign our positions.

This whole affair is certainly clarifying some things. (Via Andrew Sullivan).

instapundit.com/archives/028481.php

[quote=gilliam]FREE PRESS WALKOUT:

The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked out today, en masse, after the paper’s publishers backed down from printing the Danish cartoons that have become the center of a global free-speech fight.

Editor-in-Chief Harry Siegel emails, on behalf of the editorial staff:

New York Press, like so many other publications, has suborned its own professed principles. For all the talk of freedom of speech, only the New York Sun locally and two other papers nationally have mustered the minimal courage needed to print simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons that have been used as a pretext for great and greatly menacing violence directed against journalists, cartoonists, humanitarian aid workers, diplomats and others who represent the basic values and obligations of Western civilization. Having been ordered at the 11th hour to pull the now-infamous Danish cartoons from an issue dedicated to them, the editorial group – consisting of myself, managing editor Tim Marchman, arts editor Jonathan Leaf and one-man city hall bureau Azi Paybarah, chose instead to resign our positions.

This whole affair is certainly clarifying some things. (Via Andrew Sullivan).

instapundit.com/archives/028481.php
[/quote]

Wow - I’m not sure why, but this suprises me.

[quote=Adonis33]Wow - I’m not sure why, but this suprises me.
[/quote]

What surprises you?

[quote=gilliam]What surprises you?
[/quote]

I guess I’m suprised at the actions of the staff members walking out. I assume the MSM would try to be as PC as possible. I think I should stop assuming.

[quote=Adonis33]I guess I’m suprised at the actions of the editors walking out. I assume the MSM would try to be as PC as possible. I think I should stop assuming.
[/quote]

There is a free speech issue here. Many journalists feel they have the right to print whatever they feel like printing (especially if it is anti-religious).

What is surprising to me is just how few papers and MSM have shown the cartoons. Even Fox News hasn’t deliberately shown the cartoons. I guess free speech and journalistic integrety goes by the wayside if you think your family might be fire bombed.

So terrorism wins another round, and this time in our own country.

[quote=gilliam]What is surprising to me is just how few papers and MSM have shown the cartoons.
[/quote]

I’m surprised too.

[quote=gilliam]So terrorism wins another round, and this time in our own country.
[/quote]

It aint over yet.

[quote=Ani Ibi]I’m surprised too.

It aint over yet.
[/quote]

michellemalkin.com/archives/images/buydanish.jpg

[quote=gilliam]What is surprising to me is just how few papers and MSM have shown the cartoons.
[/quote]

Yeah, I’ve been surprised too - for all their carrying on about speech rights I guess the talk stops where the Molotov Cocktail begins. :rolleyes: I guess I can’t blame them too much, I wouldn’t want to be killed either over something so ridiculous like a cartoon.

[quote=gilliam]There is a free speech issue here. Many journalists feel they have the right to print whatever they feel like printing (especially if it is anti-religious).

What is surprising to me is just how few papers and MSM have shown the cartoons. Even Fox News hasn’t deliberately shown the cartoons. I guess free speech and journalistic integrety goes by the wayside if you think your family might be fire bombed.

So terrorism wins another round, and this time in our own country.
[/quote]

The Philadelphia Inquirer has published the cartons and is being picketed by Muslims as a result. Here is a link to an article giving their reasons for publishing them. At the bottom of the page is a link to the cartoons themselves:

philly.com/mld/philly/13805804.htm

[quote=gilliam]There is a free speech issue here. Many journalists feel they have the right to print whatever they feel like printing (especially if it is anti-religious).

What is surprising to me is just how few papers and MSM have shown the cartoons. Even Fox News hasn’t deliberately shown the cartoons. I guess free speech and journalistic integrety goes by the wayside if you think your family might be fire bombed.

So terrorism wins another round, and this time in our own country.
[/quote]

What I find most disturbing is the automatic assumption that if a publication or journalist decides not to print the cartoons it is because of Muslim intimidation. It therfore becomes incumbant on them to print, not on the issue of free speech but to demonstrate a resistance to coercion.

If they object to printing on the grounds of bad taste, or even bad journalism, that is automatically transmuted by all and sundry into an aquiescence to Muslim fundamentalism.

So the result is they are damned if they do, and they are damned if they don’t.

So in reality it is only a question of HALF of press freedom, the freedom to publish. It would appear that the freedom NOT to publish is being denied by the very people who claim to standing up for press freedom!

Well, either they have a double standard and treat Islam different than Christianity (for they don’t hesitate to print pictures offensive to Christians in the process of reporting news).

Or they are afraid of being fire bombed

Your choice here

[quote=gilliam]Well, either they have a double standard and treat Islam different than Christianity (for they don’t hesitate to print pictures offensive to Christians in the process of reporting news).

Or they are afraid of being fire bombed

Your choice here
[/quote]

If that is the case (even though it dodges the questions posed) then there can be no argument about the publications in Der Stermer in the 1930’s by Julius Streiker being legitimate. The fact that it indirectly lead to over 6 million deaths is, by your argument, secondary to press freedom.

If your going to argue for total press feedom then anything goes. How about naked copulating couples on the front page of the NYT. or any other publication come to that.

At some point good taste and self censorship HAS to be exercised, the question simply is, where and by whom?

With the present furore being stirred up by Militants on both sides that decision, based on good jounalistic practice, is no longer able to be exercised.

[quote=walstan]If that is the case (even though it dodges the questions posed) then there can be no argument about the publications in Der Stermer in the 1930’s by Julius Streiker being legitimate. The fact that it indirectly lead to over 6 million deaths is, by your argument, secondary to press freedom.

[/quote]

I am talking about what is happening now, not something that happened in 1930.

If your going to argue for total press feedom then anything goes. How about naked copulating couples on the front page of the NYT. or any other publication come to that…

I am not arguing about total press freedom to print pornography. We are not talking about pornography with these cartoons, not even close.

At some point good taste and self censorship HAS to be exercised, the question simply is, where and by whom?

With the present furore being stirred up by Militants on both sides that decision, based on good jounalistic practice, is no longer able to be exercised.

Again, there is either a double standard working here (because they have printed similar “offensive” pictures) or they are afraid of fire bombing.

The real issue here is that Muslims need to figure out how to live in a world where not everyone believes the same things they do.

There was noting overly offensive about the cartoons, nor was there anything overly offensive about the original newspaper article printing them. The Islamisists added cartoons to the mix that they created and they incited an international incident. This is a major news story, the cartoons are part of that story.

As for depicting Mohammad in picture form, do a Google search and you will see that he has been pictured for centuries.

American editorial cartoonists weighing in:

Mike Thompson, Detroit Free Press
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/thompsoncartoon.jpg

Cox and Forkum…

michellemalkin.com/archives/images/cfcartoon.jpg

Hat tip

I am talking about what is happening now, not something that happened in 1930.

Press freedom is not restricted to today. If we can’t learn from the mistakes of the past what chance have we of not repeating them today.

I am not arguing about total press freedom to print pornography. We are not talking about pornography with this cartoons, not even close.

There are some out there who would argue that pornography is quite legitimate in our current world and therefore should be acceptable in any news media. What you are arguing for is press freedom within the limits YOU impose not true press freedom.

Again, there is either a double standard working here (because they have printed similar “offensive” pictures) or they are afraid of fire bombing.

You are right, there is a double standard but, I would maintain the “Double” is not only the right to print but also the right NOT to print and that is what is at stake in this scenario.

The real issue here is that Muslims need to figure out how to live in a world where not everyone believes the same things they do.

Is this not the same argument that say’s Catholics should accept abortion because we live in the same world where not everyone believes in the same things they do?

There was nothing overly offensive about the cartoons,

What is or isn’t offensive to others is purely judgemental. I would have thought that one of the practices of the love good christians should show to others is to be able to assess what is offensive to others and try to avoid it, or does that only apply to our feelings?

nor was there anything overly offensive about the original newspaper article printing them. The Islamisists added cartoons to the mix that they created and they incited an international incident. This is a major news story, the cartoons are part of that story.

The cartoons are not “part” of the story, they ARE the story. Without the initial provocation and publication of cartoons that were neither funny nor even well drawn this whole issue would be another non event. The initial publication wasn’t to express free speech, it was to incite a reaction. In that it would seem to have succeeded magnificantly.

As for depicting Mohammad in picture form, do a Google search and you will see that he has been pictured for centuries.

With his turban looking like a bomb about to explode,( the inference being the Mohammad is a suicide bomber) at a time of extremely high tension between the “West” and “Islam” because of islamic militant suicide bombings? And your surprised?

How about a cartoon of the twin towers crashing down with a depiction of one of the dead on the top waving his arms around shouting “Jeronimo!!” That’s the sort of bad taste that would make any American sick but would probably have very little effect on the rest of the world.

Ever noticed, it’s often very difficult to defend the indefensible?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.