N&O public editor Ted Vaden, who works independently of the newsroom, wrote today about readers' views on publishing the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that triggered protests and a growing diplomatic crisis. Ted interviewed me for the column; I told him we'd need a compelling journalistic reason to publish the cartoons at this point. Context is important. By the time The N&O and most other U.S. news outlets began carrying stories on the cartoons, we were reporting on escalating protests and the Danish government's response. Those stories were being told in articles and photographs. We were not faced with a decision to leave out material that was being offered for publication; the cartoons had been published months earlier, and it was the reaction that was the news.

A couple of readers (not many) have asked my position on the cartoons. As the senior editor over news, I don't have a position on who's done what right or wrong. Neither do I see a need for us to seek out cartoons to publish to prove that we can. The N&O, as an American newspaper protected by the First Amendment and traditions of free speech, doesn't have much to prove in terms of being able to publish any material we like. However, when we publish material we know will upset people, we spend plenty of time and discussion weighing our reasons for doing so and the competing public interests in play. I can say with certainty that we will again publish an image or material that will offend someone (we offend people at some level fairly regularly), but our decisions will be driven by what news we're trying to report and the best way to do so.

02/12/06 at 16:28
Miss Melanie - believe me, I am offended every day that I see Doonesbury in your paper. I don't read it, but knowing it is there make me sick. However, if on the alternate page you were to run this cartoon, then you would equalize your paper (I know, you have no control over the opinion page):

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/

Then again, you do run "The Boondocks!" (Big Smile)

Uncle Ruckus
Gadfly

02/12/06 at 18:46
Krauthamer had it correct...

U.S. newspapers are cowards and hypocrites. Cowering under their desks.

Well here are 100+ representations of Mohammed starting from the middle ages.

www.outpost911.com

Also at that website are some really nasty cartoons from the mideast state-sponsored papers that are sickeningly ant-jew and anti-christian. The hypocrisy of the ME fist-pumpers makes me barf.

So Ms. Sill, did the N&O print any pictures of Pi$$ Christ
or the Virgin Mary dung art?

02/13/06 at 13:15
The media, including the News & Observer, persists in telling less than half the story regarding these cartoons, and I find that reprehensible. Some of the cartoons used by Danish imams to stoke the outrage have been proven to be fabricated by the Danish imams, including one where they crudely manipulated an image from a French newspaper of a pig-calling contest winner to suggest Danes were calling Mohammed a pig.

The News & Observer also makes a determination not to mention the fact that the Arab Muslim press has long made a practice of posting far much more offensive editorial cartoons, including those making fun of the horror of the Holocaust and of Arab cartoon showing Demon-like Jews eating Muslim babies to stir up hatred against Israel.

It is fine to me if the News & Observer does not want to run these particular images, but if they are going to discuss the cultural impact of these images at all, they bear the responsibility of reporting the entire story and providing context.

In these areas, the N&O, like most American media, have chosen to remain silent, confusing intellectual cowardice with cultural tolerance.

I find that inexcusable.

02/14/06 at 02:04
N&O has nothing to prove by printing the cartoons? Describing them suffices? Lets be honest, you see no dollars/profit in doing so. Obviously the images ARE the news. Not all your readers surf the Internet. Do your readers know that the Danish publisher felt his countryman were afraid of Muslim reprisals and self censorship was evident when many cartoonist would not illustrate a book about Muhammad? Are they aware of film maker Van Gogh's murder and Ayaan Hirsi Ali being forced to have 24hr guarded protection for daring to make the movie Submission. Theses cartoons appear childish but provoke worlwide riots. Your self censorship is exactly why the Danish editor printed them. Most of what we do offends Muslims, such as sexual equality, dogs, pigs, alcohol, etc. This type of totalitarianism must be stood up against. Why should we let a 7th century idealogy trump modern democratic ideals? Cristianity has survived two centuries of scriptual criticisms, Islams turn has barely begun. If the N&O is afraid then say so, we will understand.

02/14/06 at 08:24
Can't you just see them quivering beneath their desks?

Still waiting for the answer if the N&O has ever printed any pictures of Pi$$ Christ or the Virgin Mary dung art? Since the Danish cartoons aren'y near as bad as those two, how about have you printed ANYTHING that may be deemed offensive by Jews, Christians, or any other religion? See what a slippery slope you have entered?

.... Waiting

.... Crickets

....... Crickets

02/14/06 at 11:10
Yo'Jim - I do believe the N&O did publish the pictures of the "Pee Christ." But that was in the day when Jesse Helms was in full power and the paper was owned by "the name that shall not be spoken" family.

Of the various stores about the "cartoon" story, this is probably the best one, and believe it or not, it's from Candian:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Levant_Ezra/2006/02/13/1439841.html

No guts, no glory!

Uncle Ruckus

02/14/06 at 11:13
Whoa - just found a couple of more "cartoons" that are right on the mark about several stories.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/

These guys would be another excellent replacement for Doonesbury. Please let Steve know.

Uncle Ruckus
Gadfly

02/14/06 at 13:17

All,

There are so many background story possibilities and opportunity for some really good in depth IMPORTANT work.

The "extra" pix put in by Danish Imams, the daily anti-Jew/christian cartoons in arab STATE SPONSORED press, the hypocrisy, the cartoons printed in Jordan in Oct without a peep, the supremicist views of Arabs, the Iranian nuke nightmare that is unfolding, the absolute bizarre Iranian president, his "election" after all the reformers were thrown of ballot, the farcical idea that Hamas will turn away from terror, the unspeakable abomination of STATE SPONSORED indoctrination of Arab children to HATE JEWS from the day they are born (i.e. the future Nazi youth/ suicide bomber), The influence of Saudi Arabian Wahhabbi money in the U.S. and its academies.

But no. The LLL story is how we are offending the gentle feelings of Islam.

02/14/06 at 13:21

Uncle Ruckus said....
Yo'Jim - I do believe the N&O did publish the pictures of the "Pee Christ."

Well there it is. Care to correct the record Melanie?

How about the Dung Art? Where you 2/2 for free license to offend Christians?

02/14/06 at 13:50
The N&O did not publish the Andres Serrano photo, which ignited a controversy focused in part on the fact that federal arts funding went to the artist. We did publish articles about it.

02/14/06 at 14:32

Ruckus, james, Bob

Here's a very intriguing pointer.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTP911/

The group description is
"A group of RTP,North Carolina citizens that will educate the NC public about the ideology of radical Islam. "

First welcoming post was just 2 days ago.

Maybe see you there.

02/14/06 at 15:07

Let's face it, it is dangerous to publish these pictures. That fact is self evident from all the violence perpetrated by radical Islam.

However, the other more important fact, is that the newspapers and citizens right to free speech is being curtailed by not publishing. Don't you think for one second that the worlds newspapers folding under Islamic pressure is not perceived as a sign of weakness by radical Islam.

There is an honorable (and near-zero risk of bodily harm) way out of this predicament. There should be an article written jointly amongst many national newspapers with the pictures. A lot of background info should go along with these pictures like issues detailed above. Then EVERY newspaper in the country should run it each day for an entire week. The major point of running this story will be to demonstrate to radical Islam that we will not back down on our right to freedom of speech. Mas repudiation of radical Islam is a GOOD thing, and IMPORTANT. If any Muslim in the U.S. violently objects , it's a good sign that they don't understand our country and that they probably are apparently not in that group of Muslims called Moderate (BTW, have you ever met one?) The risk is spread around all newspapers and would essentially be next to zero for any one paper.

You heard it here first.

02/15/06 at 01:17
War with Iran question is not "if" but "when". Irans President Mahmud Ahmaddejad has made his Hitler/Stalin like imperial plans clear. That is why French President Chirac made his comments France will use nucler weapons in defense if needed. Iran wants nukes because their future is dire. In twenty years there will be no oil, the per capita GDP $7,000 they have now may even go down, 1/3 of the population will be elderly. The plan is to expand into the oil rich lands of Saudi Arabia and westard. Europe and Saudia Arabia do not want Iran to become nuclear for this reason. The issue is do we put off the inevitable and loose more lives later or deal with it now? This needs to be widely discussed. Their are no good outcomes, only worst ones.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html Here is an informative site on this topic.

02/15/06 at 17:25
James & Jim - you are both correct. This issue need to be dicussed. However, unless Americans are directly effected by something or inconvenances, forgot it. Heck, they won't even get off their lazy butts and do anything to make Wake County a better to live or even vote for that matter.

The folks are more concerned with Brittany's baby, who Jessica is dating, Paris Hilton's shoe size, Catie breaking up with Tom, and the "disrespect the White House Press Corp" received after the VP's hunting accident. We have grown fat, lazy, and self- absorbed.

Oh, there are a few of us left, but we a now a minority.

Uncle Ruckus

02/17/06 at 00:50
Uncle Ruckus -

Another excellent comic strip, to be published along side the left-leaning "Doonsbury," would be "Mallard Filmore," without a doubt a pro-conservative, pro-Republican strip.

02/18/06 at 01:44
However, if one is forbidden to blaspheme the prophet, it shuts all potential doors for open discussion about Muhammad as a moral example for all time. And what flows from that is shutting down discussion of the fact that Muslims are following in Muhammad's footsteps, and the fact that the so-called "terrorists" like UBL and Zarqawi are factually those who are most closely following in Muhammad's actual footseps. And that would crush the illusion that Islam itself is a "religion of peace". Which would crush the illusion that a huge number of so-called "moderate Muslims' who presumably represent the "real" Islam, have had their religion yanked out from under them by the likes of UBL and Zarqawi. And that realization would awaken the infidels to the realization that "good" Muslims follow not only in the path of UBL and Zarqawi, but in the path of Muhammad himself. Which would mean that real Muslims ARE basically commanded to kill us infidels and that they are also permitted to lie to us about their intentions to do so until they have established a certain critical mass amongst us, after which the mask will come off - just as it did with their perfect man and prophet Muhammad.
In other words, denying us infidels the freedom to speak openly about Muhammad is tantamount to denying us infidels the right to speak openly about what Muslims ACTUALLY HAVE IN STORE FOR US - namely our death, our conversion, or our subjugation.
To read all of this thread go to Jihadwatch site below
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010274.php#comments

02/19/06 at 02:42
Let us take stock of the moral intuitions now on display in the House of Islam: On Aug. 17, 2005, an Iraqi insurgent helped collect the injured survivors of a car bombing, rushed them to a hospital and then detonated his own bomb, murdering those who were already mortally wounded as well as the doctors and nurses struggling to save their lives. Where were the cries of outrage from the Muslim world? Religious sociopaths kill innocents by the hundreds in the capitols of Europe, blow up the offices of the U.N. and the Red Cross, purposefully annihilate crowds of children gathered to collect candy from U.S. soldiers on the streets of Baghdad, kidnap journalists, behead them, and the videos of their butchery become the most popular form of pornography in the Muslim world, and no one utters a word of protest because these atrocities have been perpetrated “in defense of Islam.” But draw a picture of the Prophet, and pious mobs convulse with pious rage. One could hardly ask for a better example of religious dogmatism and its pseudo-morality eclipsing basic, human goodness.

It is time we recognized—and obliged the Muslim world to recognize—that “Muslim extremism” is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism. The truth about Islam is as politically incorrect as it is terrifying: Islam is all fringe and no center. In Islam, we confront a civilization with an arrested history. It is as though a portal in time has opened, and the Christians of the 14th century are pouring into our world.
To read complete article go to site below
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam/

05/12/06 at 07:46
Thanks for the special work and information!