In today's column, Seattle Times Executive Editor Mike Fancher fails to give a credible explanation why his paper won't publish the Danish Muhammad cartoons, except to say: "Showing cartoons isn't worth hurt to readers"
We haven't published the cartoons because we believe they would needlessly and deeply offend a portion of our readers.He manages to ignore the fact that his paper (and every paper) inevitably offends somebody or other, no matter what it publishes. The real question is why does the Times seek to avoid offending people over this particular issue, and Fancher provides no insight. Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the conclusion is that Times has capitulated to self-censorship to avoid violations of Shari'a law. If the Times continues to muzzle itself in compliance with Muslim dictates, it will continue to decrease in relevance as a source of information in the years ahead --
Put the Times cravenness in the context of Indonesian President Yudhoyono's counsel to the international media:
Reprinting the cartoons in order to make a point about free speech is an act of senseless brinkmanship. It is also a disservice to democracy. It sends a conflicting message to the Muslim community: that in a democracy, it is permissible to offend Islam.I always thought that it was permissible to offend Islam in a democracy, but apparently the Times agrees with Yudhoyono. And as this commentator puts it in the German Der Spiegel:
The heartfelt statements by western politicians that nobody wants a clash of civilizations don't do much good any more. Because that is exactly what the Islamists want. And what happens when the western and Islamic worlds are in conflict over more than a few silly cartoons from Denmark?Good question. All I know is that I won't be looking to the Seattle Times as a credible source of information about that conflict. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 12, 2006 10:49 AM | Email This
http://crimemagazine.com/river.htm
Posted by: Legast on February 12, 2006 11:07 AM"Why would a reader expect to be able to make a ruling on whether the cartoons are offensive if he or she is not Muslim?" asked David Birdwell, Times nation / world editor. "That's the whole point of the story: Muslims see them as blasphemous; others don't."
Will the Times add an Imam as an editor to review all future content before publication? I am sure that the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Saudi Arabia could supply the Times with such an official.
Freedom of the press is starting to look like the Democrat Fillibuster. Something that exists as long as it is not used. I wonder what sort of "nuclear option" will be used when freedom of the press is exercised.
Posted by: rw on February 12, 2006 11:28 AMIs it news that forged cartoons were used to whip up the frenzy?
Is it news that the MSM has capitulated to radical Islam?
Is it news that is and idiot?
Yes on the first three, no on the last one.
Posted by: JCM on February 12, 2006 12:24 PMIs it news the whole "controversy" has been manipulated and fomented?
Is it news that forged cartoons were used to whip up the frenzy?
Is it news that the MSM has capitulated to radical Islam?
Is it news that Fancher is and idiot?
Yes on the first three, no on the last one.
Posted by: JCM on February 12, 2006 12:25 PMSHEEEEESH!!!
Posted by: oswald czolgosz on February 12, 2006 12:25 PMOnce we see Mike Fancher weaving his way through gridlock on 2-humped camel with a towel on his head and 72 virgins in tow, we'll know his insanity is terminal.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 12, 2006 12:29 PMUnder a system of government that protects free speech, it is always permissible to offen n n n n n d anyone as long as there is no credible threat to life, liberty or property.
Freedom requires learning to deal with being offended. No one has a right to not be offended, but we do have a right not to be threatened. Free speech guarantees that someone will be offended.
GET OVER IT!
I am offended because they won't publish the cartoons. The very act of appeasing the thugs who are rioting offends others.
Furthermore, while seeming to protect a non-right against being offended, we are actually violating a real right not to be threatened!!
So far, the thugs are winning.
Posted by: TH on February 12, 2006 12:47 PMCongratulations to the lame stream media once again!!!
The educated people know how to move on just like the rest of us. People will always make mockery of something or another. Nothing new folks so get on with it and the extremist are the ones having a problem and I say tough crissy!
Posted by: dcat on February 12, 2006 01:21 PMStefan, the Seattle Slimes ceased being relevant years ago.
The Slimes has been offending Christians and conservatives for a long time. If all it took was a few threats too get them to oblige...
...well I am more than willing....
Posted by: JCM on February 12, 2006 01:58 PMPreamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
Seek Truth and Report It:
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Mike seems to have lost his "courage" testicles!
Mike "Castrati" Fancher---
The Journalist with NO BALLS!
IT IS the COMPLETE CRUX of the story that an Imam would purposefully drag these around the sands of the mideast and beat them into swords of slaughter for a billion people with 12 cartoons and three of his own and you say the understanding would not be enhanced if published?!!!!???
You are part of their 5th column and I’ll tell you this- the enemy of your enemy is Not your friend. I spit on your sidewalks that you would cave into this kind of extortion. You are cowards and make Neville Chamberlain look like a man.
Throughout history a few of us always gotta clean up the mess and Fancher you have helped make it...until you turn your paperblog over to rooting for the home team ya better get that burka on your wife and tuck that turban over your hair club for men haircut because your on their side. Probably deliberate by design he still has Jimmy Carter Rocks Tehran 1979 World Tour poster up.
They have become active participants in the a War on Liberty. They have chosen sides, thinking they will save their necks. They deserve nothing except our contempt and ridicule.
Posted by: JCM on February 12, 2006 05:16 PMWhy should they knowingly offend a number of their readers when the cartoons are easily accessible online to anyone who wants to go looking for them?
They're not censoring the story. They are not refusing to talk about the issue. And I certainly don't get the impression that they are saying the reaction of the Muslim world is appropriate.
They are simply not choosing to re-publish the cartoons in their pages -- just as they choose not to publish any number of news items or crime details every day.
Posted by: Mickymse on February 12, 2006 09:34 PMIt matters not that some Muslims may be offended by publishing these cartoons if the greater effect is that we displace our moral certitude. This is what the Times is hoping to achieve along with the rest of the mainstream media. The Islamic fanatics along with their appeasers in our media are hopeing to break the will of the American people.
But they have miscalculated because Americans are not motivated by others, they are motivated by themselves. I do not care, nor do the vast majority of Americans care whether our lifestyle if offensive to Muslims. We know that we live by a far greater code than that of Sharia law. We live by the code of mutual benefit. Each of us knows that if we can persuade a man with our good ideas we will have far greater results than trying to persuade that same man through fear, guilt or any of the more craven negative forces.
We defend our way of life because we know it has produced superior results. All we have to do is look at our country, thriving under Western culture vs. those rotting Middle Eastern theorcracies dying under the tyranny of oppression and suppression, even in spite of their vast wealth in natural resources.
The cameras do not lie. Look at daily pictures of a street in the US vs. a street in the Middle East. Would you rather live life under our subjugation of mutual tolerance that ultimately gives rise to vast commerce, or under the subjugation of mutual intolerance that gaurantees uniformity and poverty?
Let the Seattle Times keep it up with their insistence of painting a bright orange line for Americans to choose sides upon. For the vast majority of Americans, the choice of a diverse, tolerant, passionate, pleasurable and rewarding life WILL be easy, and that WILL be offensive to Muslims.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 12, 2006 10:43 PMHank, that's one of the differences that make a difference...in the Muslim world there's no difference between the political and the religious. They claim the right to impose their political will on non-believers as a matter of religious freedom.
Their world view is so different than ours that we can use the same words and mean totally different things. I don't expect them to understand that, although I suspect they do; if anyone should understand it, it's the so-called intellectual left. That would require a level of objectivity and abstraction I do not see any evidence of.
Posted by: South County on February 13, 2006 02:53 AMOnce Communism had become a religion, it did the same.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on February 13, 2006 06:23 AMIf Muslims truly want freedom, many of them have a funny way of showing it. Maybe they don't deserve it. I was in support of the war, but it's wearing thin. I'm starting to think that if these people don't want freedom and the warts that go along with it, then give them what they want. Let them go back to the 9th century.
Posted by: Palouse on February 13, 2006 09:28 AMAnd freedom of the press works even better when you make sense. Try again -
Posted by: das on February 13, 2006 05:51 PMCuriously, it's only extremists, leftists and muzzie's, who would presume to choose who to "muzzle".....
Funny how America's liberal democrat is becoming indistinguishable from the ME's "insurgent" (AKA terrorist)....
Posted by: alphabet soup on February 13, 2006 08:21 PM