February 10, 2006

Daily Illini Prints Cartoons

Bravo to the official student publication of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana for standing up for press freedom around the world.

The University of Illinois student newspaper Thursday published six caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that have sparked violent protests in the Middle East and Asia.

Nearly every major U.S. newspaper, including the Chicago Tribune, has not published the cartoons. They were first published in late September by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and they were reprinted in other European publications in recent weeks.

While UN Secretary General Kofi Annan chastised newspapers Thursday that continue to publish the cartoons, Daily Illini editor-in-chief Acton Gorton said he decided to print them so students could better understand the Muslim response.

"All across this nation, editors are gripped in fear of printing ... for fear of the reaction. As a journalist, this flies in the face of everything I hold dear. By refusing to print these editorial cartoons, we are preventing an important issue from being debated by the public," Gorton wrote in a column next to the drawings.

It is a shame that a once-great newspaper like the Tribune is now reduced to cowering in fear while student publications and the internet do its job instead. And it is also a shame that the University administration for this expression of disapproval.

In a letter to the Daily Illini to be published Friday, U. of I. Chancellor Richard Herman wrote that he is "saddened" that the newspaper decided to publish the cartoons. He suggested that the editors could have informed the public by giving readers a Web link to the cartoons instead.

"I believe that the DI could have engaged its readers in legitimate debate about the issues surrounding the cartoons' publication in Denmark without publishing them," he wrote. "It is possible, for instance, to editorialize about pornography without publishing pornographic pictures."

And here I thought the University was all about widening the horizons of students, exposing them to diverse ideas on a variety of topics, opening their eyes to multiple perspectives, as well as training adults to function in an open and democratic society. I guess that U of I no longer performs those functions, and instead is a therapeutic resource for mental, emotional, and intellectual cripples who need to be shielded from influences that might upset or offend them, rather than provoking thought and discussion. And that Chancellor Herman doesnÂ’t know the difference between pornography and social commentary is indicative of his lack of qualification for his position.

And then there is this gratuitous quote at the end.

U. of I. senior Ehav Yasin, a Muslim student from Carpentersville, said he was upset by the Daily Illini's decision.

So what? Who cares? Yasin’s emotional weakness is irrelevant to the decision of the Daily Illini to fully inform its readers about a major international story. It is clear that despite years of higher education, he really has learned nothing about the values that undergird the American republic. Hopefully he will mature during his senior year and become a functioning member of society – or, barring that, perhaps he will exercise his right to relocate to another country with values more in line with his own.

Here's a cache of the page.

UPFATE: Bravo to the Daily Tarheel at UNC for publishing its own cartoon.

UNCCARTOON.jpg

Muslims opposed to the First Amendment are outraged.

The Muslim Students Association at the University of North Carolina on Friday asked the campus' student newspaper to apologize for publishing an original cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

"The intention of bigotry was clear," the association wrote in a letter to The Daily Tar Heel. "One must question the DTH's ethics in advancing a widely protested issue to cause a riot of their own. The MSA not only found this cartoon derogatory but is also shocked at the editor's allowance of its publication _ one that incites hate in the current political and social context."

Caricatures of Muhammad, including one that shows the prophet with a bomb-shaped turban, were published first in a Danish paper in September, then reprinted in European papers in recent weeks in the name of press freedom. Their publication has sparked violent protests in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Islam is interpreted to forbid any illustrations of Muhammad for fear they could lead to idolatry.

The paper's editor strikes exactly the right position between sensitivity and journalistic integrity.

The cartoon published in The Daily Tar Heel Thursday was drawn by a cartoonist at the paper, Philip McFee. It shows Muhammad appearing to decry both Denmark's role in the controversy and the violence that has erupted since.

Daily Tar Heel editor Ryan Tuck said the newspaper wanted to challenge fellow students to think about the issue. He said while he has apologized personally to individuals who told him the cartoon offended, the newspaper will not apologize.

"The point of any cartoon in any newspaper is to challenge belief systems," Tuck said. "We knew it would offend, but that doesn't make it the explicit goal of the cartoon."

And as usual, a sensitivity fascist from the university administration has to criticize.

The Daily Tar Heel has a long history of journalistic independence, but university officials would hope that it would use restraint around a topic such as this one, which is hurtful and offensive to members of the campus community, said Margaret Jablonski, vice chancellor for student affairs at UNC-Chapel Hill.

"Many of our national media outlets chose not to publish the original pictures or cartoons and we believe our student paper should have used the same editorial judgement," Jablonski said.

I guess that the administration has forgotten that a university is a place to learn, to grow, and to have one's beliefs challenged. Isn't that what we conservaitives are always told?

OPEN TRACKBACKING: bRight & Early, Don Surber, Adam's Blog, Basil's Blog, Stuck on Stupid, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, third world country, The Real Ugly American, Everyman's Chronicles, Liberal Wrong Wing, Uncooperative Blogger, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Stop The ACLU.

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1012 words, total size 8 kb.

1 I heard on the radio on the way home that some people were concered that if the cartoons were printed that violence would come to their local. Maybe the fear of tha violence will wake up some of the kool-aid drinking libs that there really is a war on terror and hugging the terrorists doesn't do anything for them ... and could just get you killed.

Posted by: Jo at Fri Feb 10 14:55:28 2006 (jwi2i)

2 Well lads and lasses ... I'm pretty far conservative and I'm a bit more concerned about irresponsible "freedom of the press" than I am about whether these cartoons are published or not. To publish simply to agitate under the guise of "freedom of the press" is, in my view, wrong ... and I don't care whether that is done with Muslim-offending cartoons ... or Christian-offending cartoons ...

We've bridled "freedom of speech" in a variety of areas by making people accountable for what they spew ... "freedom of press" is equally vulnerable IMHO. Freedoms are freedoms only when used responsibly and with accountability. The original Danish newspaper did not know what they were inciting ... all others have fed the flames out of "solidarity". A damn poor reason, in my view ...

Posted by: Well_Seasoned at Sat Feb 11 05:28:49 2006 (74qDR)

3 Well, then, all we have to do is consider whether or not the decision o publish was "reasonable". Let me put some questions to see if the decision to post them on my site was reasonable.

1) Is it "reasonable" to accept threats of violence as a basis for not publishing?

2) Is it "reasonable" to permit foreign governments and religious/political movements detrmine what can be published?

3) Is "fear of offending" a "reasonable" basis for refraining from publishing something?

4) Is it "reasonable" to permit government to restrict speech or expression based upon someone or some group deeming publication to be offensive?

I think you will quickly see that the answer to all of the above questions is "NO".

Now please refrain from calling yourself a conservative if you are going to advocate for the dumping of fundamental First Amendment protections.



Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Feb 11 07:42:59 2006 (+0ZAv)

4 Freedom of the Press is complete. I believe that the press has the absolute right to print whatever, at the risk only of slander and libel. This includes Abu Graib and supposed "secrets" of either our own or any other government. To really show and support freedom tof the press the cartoons and the torture pictures should be shown together.

Posted by: john ryan at Fri Feb 17 06:58:53 2006 (TcoRJ)

5 Actually, Mr. Ryan, there are certain limits that are historically recognized by the courts -- and those include things like military secrets in time of war. But generally speaking, i don't disagree with the ultra-libertarian position you take.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Feb 17 12:41:43 2006 (nGrOB)

6 Bravo to the university of illinois students, while the whole "Freedom of Speecg" issue is at great debate over their published comic, I find it an expression not too different from the way certain radical sects of that religion express the freedom of speech to us? With every video of terrosiest thrests against our nation, with every declaration of wiping us "infidels" off the face of the earth, have we ever criticized their right to publish it within their own medium?
For that matter have we ever found it necessary to riot in our own domicile because we thought what the opposition had to say to us was demeaning in any way? I know that it is due to religious strife, or their cultural views of their own religion. . . say what you will. In the defense of the editors of the Daily Illini, I am bothered by the fact that come under fire in their own homeland.
I find it sad for one that we don not hold our own religions with the same regard in a way. Instead of being outraged at terrorist threats and religious ridicule, we find it more necessary to worry about banning prayer anywhere we can and making an extra effort to make sure the words "Merry Christmas" do not appear during our celebrated December holiday.
The whole world needs to grow up, people do have a right to express their opinions. . . but those who listen should also take things with a grain of salt and realize that their own personal views could evoke a similar response. Give the kids a break world, I'm sure we all have better things to do to monopolize our time!

Posted by: chris at Fri Feb 17 15:42:34 2006 (bFIMU)

7 When will people finally reaize this issue was not over freedom of press. The reason the two editors were suspended was because they did all this behind the backs of the other editors. The two began planning for the cartoons the previous week without the knowledge of other editors. They then snuck them in after most the staff had left on the night of publication. Any person would have gotten in trouble for the same thing no matter where you worked. The administrators only did something after the request of the edit board. If the whole edit board of a newspaper came to the publisher and said, "Look, the editor in chief and this other editor are not playing by the books and you need to do something about it," and you're publisher had any sense of mind, he or she would do something about it.

Posted by: Daniel Williams at Sat Feb 18 04:10:54 2006 (D5/oW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
18kb generated in CPU 0.0056, elapsed 0.0143 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0101 seconds, 36 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]