The Press Is An Ostrich, And So Are Others
In our numerous posts from yesterday, I missed this one from Michelle Malkin, and this one, too. It seems that the press, and certain governments abroad have take the ostrich approach to dealing with the "Cartoon War."
Sweden is censoring sites and papers who choose to print the cartoons and discuss the subject, depanding on their content. A note here: Sweden, in recent polls, ranks ninth in the world for press freedom. Some freedom when the government cracks down on bloggers and journalists for touching the subject. (See, Mr. Hewitt, it is called solidarity; as citizen journalists we, too, are being told to stop dealing with this subject.)
In Malaysia, not only are journalists and papers told to not reprint the photos, but now criminal charges could be levied for anyone in possession or distributing them. Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim nation, and this is the sort of "freedom" they embrace.
In Yemen, a paper has been closed down, and it's editor is being sought for arrest because they published the cartoons.
In South Africa, the courts have jumped in on this mess, and outlawed the publication of the cartoons. This, according to South African Freedom of Expression Institute, directly threatens their press freedom.
In the Ukraine and Poland, editors are apologizing for reprinting the cartoons in their papers.
Kooky Uncle Kofi has criticized the publication of the cartoons in Denmark, and any subsequent reprints in other papers around the globe. (Like we care what Kofi has to say. In my opinion, he should be issuing statements from behind bars.)
The EU is considering a "media code" to prevent further instances of "furore;" a move that is sure to make the Left happy over here, but will not speak much for press freedom anywhere.
And, our neighbors to the north have decided that they just cannot tolerate these cartoons either. In jack-booted fashion, the Canadian government has struck a blow against the freedoms their press possessed.
The Cadre, UPEI's student newspaper has published the twelve infamous editorial cartoons that criticized aspects of Islam.
At the request of president Wade MacLauchlan, university administrators have removed all 2,000 copies of the paper from campus.
The campus police also showed up at the office of Ray Keating, the paper's editor, and asked that he hand over any copies in his possession, a request he refused to comply with. Read Keating's editorial here.
The UPEI Student Union has withdrawn support of this week's issue of The Cadre and has also stated that Weblogs@UPEI "are no longer accepting comments on the cartoon issue" CTV's Steve Murphy noted during his broadcast tonight that it appears that they are now "censoring discussion about censorship".
I must agree with Ms. Malkin. This is not an exercise in prudence. It is submission, and I join her in stating I will not submit.
Thomas and I have taken our lumps on this subject from e-mailers demanding where our hypocrisy will end. We lambaste the press on a near-daily basis for their continued screw-ups, but we now defend them. At first, we stood with the Danish cartoonists because while disparaging, we felt that the cartoons were not "offensive." At least, no more offensive than any cartoon done by Muslims against Jews or Christians. A "whoopty-doo" attitude towards them for their intolerance, we felt, would be equally redressed to the Danes.
It appears we were wrong inour assumptions. It was not the first time, and it probably will not be the last time, either.
However, this has gone beyond defending the Danes for their freedom to stand up and make asses of themselves. It has now mutated into a fight for what we can and cannot say. When will the Muslim thought police kick down newspaper doors for even entertaining the thought of printing anything bu the "glory" of Allah? People may snicker at that, but the above citations I have made come from what Michelle Malkin linked to on her site. (No need to duplicate those links. Go there and see them for yourselves.) This crackdown reminds me of those from the past. From Hitler to Stalin, from Mao Castro, we have seen what happens when the press is no longer free to print anything except what is "proper" and "washed." We have those in this country that claim outlets like FOX News is nothing more than a talking point station for the GOP. That is not true. I lump them with the MSM as I do CNN and MSNBC. This, I am sure will garner me criticism, but they, too, run from stories they do not wish to cover. (O'Reilly, anyone? How about Geraldo on the eve of the Iraq invasion when he showed everyone where the units he was with where by drawing a map in the sand?)
Yes, we have beat up the media for their problems. However, even we can stand back and state that without a free press, freedom of expression in that form is dead. And when they come for the media people, we will end up being next. We have witnessed a crackdown on bloggers in Iran and China; we are seeing it in Canada over these cartoons. So, my question to those on the opposite side of this issue--Mr. Hewitt included--is where do you draw your battle lines? At what point do you say "this far, and no further"? This is not just about freedom of the press. This is about freedom, in general. The freedom to think and say what we feel.
Of course, we will agree that with freedom comes responsibility for that freedom. It is not absolute. Had the Danes portrayed Mohammed in ways like the imams did (those would be the phony cartoons deliberately made up to further incite the Muslims street), then we would not stand with them. Those cartoons (not cartoons, really; only one was hand drawn, the other two were photo-manipulations) were defamatory, and that is where we draw the line. That is where the freedom will die. When purposeful distortion occurs, there should be no freedom to hide behind, which is why we have such a problem with the MSM in this country. They distort daily, and hide behind the First Amendment; never to be truly held accountable.
The cartoons done by the Danes were not meant to distort the idea of Mohammed. They were meant to be satire. An opinion by twelve people as to how they viewed Mohammed. If anyone has seent he cartoons, the only truly "disparaging" one of the bunch is of the bomb-turban Mohammed. Okay, that one may have been a bit much. The others are, at best, humorous. A couple of them are so poorly drawn one would think a two-year old had drawn them.
In the end we have to ask ourselves two very important questions:
First, were those opinions truly disparaging enough to excuse the violence perpetuated in their name?
Second, is the self-censorship being exercised by media outlets and governments worth the price for a little security; security, I might add, that is not absolute?
The Bunny ;)
In our numerous posts from yesterday, I missed this one from Michelle Malkin, and this one, too. It seems that the press, and certain governments abroad have take the ostrich approach to dealing with the "Cartoon War."
Sweden is censoring sites and papers who choose to print the cartoons and discuss the subject, depanding on their content. A note here: Sweden, in recent polls, ranks ninth in the world for press freedom. Some freedom when the government cracks down on bloggers and journalists for touching the subject. (See, Mr. Hewitt, it is called solidarity; as citizen journalists we, too, are being told to stop dealing with this subject.)
In Malaysia, not only are journalists and papers told to not reprint the photos, but now criminal charges could be levied for anyone in possession or distributing them. Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim nation, and this is the sort of "freedom" they embrace.
In Yemen, a paper has been closed down, and it's editor is being sought for arrest because they published the cartoons.
In South Africa, the courts have jumped in on this mess, and outlawed the publication of the cartoons. This, according to South African Freedom of Expression Institute, directly threatens their press freedom.
In the Ukraine and Poland, editors are apologizing for reprinting the cartoons in their papers.
Kooky Uncle Kofi has criticized the publication of the cartoons in Denmark, and any subsequent reprints in other papers around the globe. (Like we care what Kofi has to say. In my opinion, he should be issuing statements from behind bars.)
The EU is considering a "media code" to prevent further instances of "furore;" a move that is sure to make the Left happy over here, but will not speak much for press freedom anywhere.
And, our neighbors to the north have decided that they just cannot tolerate these cartoons either. In jack-booted fashion, the Canadian government has struck a blow against the freedoms their press possessed.
The Cadre, UPEI's student newspaper has published the twelve infamous editorial cartoons that criticized aspects of Islam.
At the request of president Wade MacLauchlan, university administrators have removed all 2,000 copies of the paper from campus.
The campus police also showed up at the office of Ray Keating, the paper's editor, and asked that he hand over any copies in his possession, a request he refused to comply with. Read Keating's editorial here.
The UPEI Student Union has withdrawn support of this week's issue of The Cadre and has also stated that Weblogs@UPEI "are no longer accepting comments on the cartoon issue" CTV's Steve Murphy noted during his broadcast tonight that it appears that they are now "censoring discussion about censorship".
I must agree with Ms. Malkin. This is not an exercise in prudence. It is submission, and I join her in stating I will not submit.
Thomas and I have taken our lumps on this subject from e-mailers demanding where our hypocrisy will end. We lambaste the press on a near-daily basis for their continued screw-ups, but we now defend them. At first, we stood with the Danish cartoonists because while disparaging, we felt that the cartoons were not "offensive." At least, no more offensive than any cartoon done by Muslims against Jews or Christians. A "whoopty-doo" attitude towards them for their intolerance, we felt, would be equally redressed to the Danes.
It appears we were wrong inour assumptions. It was not the first time, and it probably will not be the last time, either.
However, this has gone beyond defending the Danes for their freedom to stand up and make asses of themselves. It has now mutated into a fight for what we can and cannot say. When will the Muslim thought police kick down newspaper doors for even entertaining the thought of printing anything bu the "glory" of Allah? People may snicker at that, but the above citations I have made come from what Michelle Malkin linked to on her site. (No need to duplicate those links. Go there and see them for yourselves.) This crackdown reminds me of those from the past. From Hitler to Stalin, from Mao Castro, we have seen what happens when the press is no longer free to print anything except what is "proper" and "washed." We have those in this country that claim outlets like FOX News is nothing more than a talking point station for the GOP. That is not true. I lump them with the MSM as I do CNN and MSNBC. This, I am sure will garner me criticism, but they, too, run from stories they do not wish to cover. (O'Reilly, anyone? How about Geraldo on the eve of the Iraq invasion when he showed everyone where the units he was with where by drawing a map in the sand?)
Yes, we have beat up the media for their problems. However, even we can stand back and state that without a free press, freedom of expression in that form is dead. And when they come for the media people, we will end up being next. We have witnessed a crackdown on bloggers in Iran and China; we are seeing it in Canada over these cartoons. So, my question to those on the opposite side of this issue--Mr. Hewitt included--is where do you draw your battle lines? At what point do you say "this far, and no further"? This is not just about freedom of the press. This is about freedom, in general. The freedom to think and say what we feel.
Of course, we will agree that with freedom comes responsibility for that freedom. It is not absolute. Had the Danes portrayed Mohammed in ways like the imams did (those would be the phony cartoons deliberately made up to further incite the Muslims street), then we would not stand with them. Those cartoons (not cartoons, really; only one was hand drawn, the other two were photo-manipulations) were defamatory, and that is where we draw the line. That is where the freedom will die. When purposeful distortion occurs, there should be no freedom to hide behind, which is why we have such a problem with the MSM in this country. They distort daily, and hide behind the First Amendment; never to be truly held accountable.
The cartoons done by the Danes were not meant to distort the idea of Mohammed. They were meant to be satire. An opinion by twelve people as to how they viewed Mohammed. If anyone has seent he cartoons, the only truly "disparaging" one of the bunch is of the bomb-turban Mohammed. Okay, that one may have been a bit much. The others are, at best, humorous. A couple of them are so poorly drawn one would think a two-year old had drawn them.
In the end we have to ask ourselves two very important questions:
First, were those opinions truly disparaging enough to excuse the violence perpetuated in their name?
Second, is the self-censorship being exercised by media outlets and governments worth the price for a little security; security, I might add, that is not absolute?
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:05 PM
2 Comments:
For the record, you're not hypocrites on the self-censorship issue. Just because you rightly criticize the media when they deserve it, it doesn't mean you can't come to their defense and to the defense of free speech.
There is, however, hypocrisy on the part of the media. Remember we have a cartoonist in this country, Ted Rall, who is equally as offensive as any of the cartoons that have appeared in Europe. Whenever conservatives complain about Rall, the faux left jumps to Rall's defense claiming it's free speech.
Now, when it comes to the Mohammed cartoons, they sit on their hands and comply with the censors in Europe under the auspices that it would offend Muslims here. By complying, they are contradicting their own arguments in defense of Rall.
So, the media have a question to answer: Do they believe in free speech, or do they believe in free speech only when it suits their needs?
The Ace
I am shocked by the eagerness of UPEI students to insist, in these letters to the Cadre, that their student newspaper had no right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press?
http://cadre.upei.ca/node/3096#comment
And see this CBC story, "Human rights lawyer calls on media to print Muhammad cartoons":
http://www.cbc.ca/montreal/story...ons- 060208.html
Post a Comment
<< Home