If you didn't expect the fine scribblings of Christopher Hitchens to show up here from time to time, you don't know me all that well.
fighting words
Truth and Consequences
What is the point of a paper of record that decides the untarnished record is too much for readers?
Posted Monday, Feb. 18, 2008, at 11:53 AM ET
Do you ever wonder what is the greatest enemy of the free press? One might mention a few conspicuous foes, such as the state censor, the monopolistic proprietor, the advertiser who wants either favorable coverage or at least an absence of unfavorable coverage, and so forth. But the most insidious enemy is the cowardly journalist and editor who doesn't need to be told what to do, because he or she has already internalized the need to please—or at least not to offend—the worst tyranny of all, which is the safety-first version of public opinion.
Take, just for an example, the obituaries for Earl Butz, a once-important Republican politician who served presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford as secretary for agriculture until compelled to resign after making a loutish and humorless observation in the hearing of the Watergate whistle-blower John Dean. In the words of his New York Times obituarist, Butz (who "died in his sleep while visiting his son William," which, I must say, makes the male offspring sound exceptionally soporific) had "described blacks as 'coloreds' who wanted only three things—satisfying sex, loose shoes and a warm bathroom." There isn't a grown-up person with a memory of 1976 who doesn't recall that Butz said that Americans of African descent required only "a tight pussy, loose shoes, and a warm place to shit." Had this witless bigotry not been reported accurately, he might have held onto his job. But any reader of the paper who was less than 50 years old could have read right past the relevant sentence without having the least idea of what the original controversy had been "about."
What on earth is the point of a newspaper of record that decides that the record itself may be too much for us to bear? My question is prompted by some recent developments from a previous front-page sensation. In Denmark last week, the authorities detained three people in an alleged plot to murder a 72-year-old Dane named Kurt Westergaard. Westergaard is an illustrator who lives peacefully in a university town. Not very long ago, he joined with other cartoonists in an open society in drawing some caricatures of the alleged "prophet" Mohammed. The object of the satire was to break the largely self-imposed taboo on the criticism of Islam and its various icons. The satire was wildly successful, in that it resulted in hysterical Muslims making public idols out of images they had proclaimed to be unshowable lest they became idols. Much nasty violence and intimidation accompanied this stupidity.
Anyway, last week, almost every Danish newspaper made a deliberate decision to reprint the offending cartoons. Perhaps, if you live in most of the countries where this column of mine is syndicated or reprinted, you wonder what all the fuss can have been about. Certainly, if you live in the United States or Britain, you will be wondering still. This is because your newspapers have decided for you—as with Butz—that you must be shielded from the unpalatable truth. Or can it really be that? We live in the defining age of the image and the picture; how can it be that the whole point of an entirely visual story can be deliberately left out? (To see the original cartoons, by the way, click here.) I have a feeling that the decision to protect you from the images was determined this time by something as vulgar as fear.
The cowardice of the mainstream American culture was something to see the first time around. The only magazines that bucked the self-censorship trend, or the capitulation to undisguised terror, were the conservative Weekly Standard and the atheist Free Inquiry—two outlets (for both of which I have written) with a rather small combined circulation. Borders thereupon pulled Free Inquiry from its shelves, with the negligible consequence that I will never do a reading or buy a book at any of its sites ever again. (By the way, I urge you to follow suit.) I think it's pretty safe to say that most Americans never even saw this sellout going on. But that was because their own newspapers were too shamefaced to report a surrender of which they were themselves a part.
In Canada, only two minority papers reprinted the cartoons. The Western Standard, now online only, and the Jewish Free Press were promptly taken before a sort of scrofulous bureaucratic peoples' court describing itself as the Alberta Human Rights Commission. If you think that's a funny name, try the title of the complainant: the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada. Who knows how long such a stupid "hate speech" case might have dragged on or how much public money and time it might have consumed, but last week the Islamic supremes decided to drop it. "I understand that most Canadians see this as an issue of freedom of speech," said Syed Soharwardy of the case that he had originated, adding "that principle is sacred and holy in our society." Soharwardy went on to say, rather condescendingly perhaps, that: "I believe Canadian society is mature enough not to absorb the messages that the cartoons sent. Only a very small fraction of Canadian media decided to publish those cartoons." Without the word not and without the sinister idea that Soharwardy's permission is required for anything, that first sentence would have been a perfectly good if banal statement. But with the addition of his remark about the "small fraction" and the concomitant satisfaction about the general reticence, we have no choice but to conclude that Soharwardy is satisfied on the whole with the level of frightened deference to be found north of the U.S. border. I mention this only because the level of frightened deference to be found south of that border is still far in excess of what any censor, or even self-censor, might dare to wish.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
What I hate about the media is that it is owned globally by just a few companies and they determine was it news and what is not. They also determine how the news is portrayed and at what light it is looked at.
ReplyDeletegoogle "media giants" and see what I mean! It is scarey in and of itself. Interesting post Matt!
I have mixed feelings on this issue Matt. Whilst I don't condone editorial censorship, do we really need to see offensive material like the Danish cartoons republished all over the world to judge that the material is offensive?
ReplyDeleteThe question is are they being censored because they are offensive, or are they being censored because of a fear of retribution? I get that you don't want to run naked women on Nickelodeon, that certainly wouldn't be the place and censorship or common decency would be called for, but to pull something under the guise of if you print it you will be killed is quite another. As for everyone runnig the cartoon, I think that depends on if you are going to carry the story as a news item, the cartoon is part of the story, by carrying the story and not the cartoon you are conceding that the cartoon was offensive (and the potential killers justified in a way by ceding that point), and I think the reader should make that determination, not the editor. If you don't want to run the cartoon, don't run the story at all, there are plenty of other things out there to fill up column inches.
ReplyDeleteI guess that's something only the editors that chose not to print the cartoons can answer.
ReplyDeleteSurely the actual written description of the cartoon was enough for even the "below average" reader to make a sensible determination. Or should we as readers be insisting on pictures to accompany every piece of reported news. For example a murder may be described by a reporter as "horrific", shouldn't I be able to see a picture to help me make up my own mind? Or how about the 2G1C video reports.....why will no one post that on their news site so I can look at it & see if it is really as offensive as those that have seen it claim?
Well, I am sensible most days, and after seeing the cartoons, I didn't find them offensive, but then I don't belong to that radical branch of any religion that deems death an appopriate punishment for the drawing of a prophet on a piece of paper. The example with a murder, the story itself is the murder, we can grab a general hold on what that constitutes without showing the body with the knife sticking out of it, but when covering a story about the offensiveness of something, then I think the reader or viewer should make that determination. An example from your end of the world, the whole practice of Japanese whaling, the pictures do indeed tell the story, just simply saying the Japanese are whaling, regardless of how well written and reported the story is, doesn't have the same impact of letting a viewer make the judgement for themself to say that practice is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis is all provided that the editors are acting in good faith, far be it they are acting instead out of fear, in which case they are doing their readers a disservice and setting a standard that if enough pressure is brought to bear, they will not cover anything.
I did find the cartoons offensive. For anyone to say the object of the satire was to break self-imposed taboo on the criticism of Islam and its various icons is just bullshit in my books.
ReplyDeleteHave the media even bothered to explain why cartoons depicting Mohammed are offensive? I would feel just as outraged if a lack of respect was shown to ANY religion.
Or lets look at it from another angle……How would many Americans feel if someone desecrated your flag by burning it? Your flag is JUST an icon after all.
Mr Hitchens mentions in the last paragraph that most Canadians saw this as an issue of free speech. What exactly is the cost of free speech? It’s conveniently forgotten that the intent of free speech in the legislation of many western countries is to allow the citizens to critisise their governments without fear of reprisals like execution. The right to discuss and challenge ideas. It was never intended as a defense for those who vilify or victimize certain sectors of the community.
Moreover the concept of "free speech" is a concept expected to be tempered with using responsibility, an opportunity to weigh your words and think first before you speak, to think about whether what you might have to say would be unreasonably hurtful to another or whether your verbal bullshit may in fact inflame an already bad situation.
Freedom of any kind is not without responsibility. The rights of the individual is inherently related to the rights of non infringements on the rights of others. So we have freedom of activity as long as it does not violate the laws of the land or infringe on the rights of others.
Jokes about the disabled, one’s ugly wife, one’s mother, race, sexual orientation, or religion aren't funny; especially when the intent is to harass, insult , or intimidate. They are just inappropriate ; they contribute to the hatred and animosity that already is a threat to world peace and security which in turn threatens the security of us all.
Much is being made of the threats of violence being made by extremists against the cartoonist & those that publish it. But as usual all Muslims are tarred with the same brush.
To print and then reprint those cartoons is not "free speech", it is in fact "hate speech" and yet more bigotry trying to disguise itself as free speech.
Bring back the good old days when we had a few honest, thorough investigative reporters that weren't pushing their own agendas and actually reported the facts. Maybe we wouldn't need to see such visual horrors to believe them.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet burning of the American flag, as much as it may outrage some, is in fact, protected free speech here. As is the criticism of religion. It wasn't that long ago that a crucifix in piss was called art, even titled "Piss Christ", as was placing elephant dung on an image of the Virgin Mary considered art, the difference being that their wasn't a religious hit put out on the creators of it, nor was it censored out of fear. I am not saying the cartoons were good, or I agreed with them or anything they represent, I am just saying I didn't find them any more offensive than any other tripe that passes through the public spectrum these days. If someone wants to publish material that I feel is offensive, I can always just not buy it, just as I can choose not to see the Piss Christ exhibit.
ReplyDeletetommorrow Matt...it's getting late here
ReplyDeleteIts not really that its late she's jus gone to get her arsenal ready for battle! Look out Matt!!! lol
ReplyDeleteI love reading the conversations between you two, I'm bored here at work so yall can pick this one up at anytime! :-D lol
To be honest, I agree with a lot of what Angie is saying. Whether it be the Australian constitution or our Bill of Rights, people assume mistakenly that it is simply a list of absolutes with no responsibilities or repercussions, which is a falsehood to begin with. We are granted a freedom of speech but we can't scream "Fire" in a crowded theater because public safety trumps individual freedom. Likewise we have a right to assembly, but not to mob related behavior, a freedom of the press, but there are limitations in regards to slander and libel. I get the distinctions (I have argued on the radio that the NRA doesn't get the distinction in the right to bear arms, treating it as an absolute, something we do not do with our other rights granted in the same passages) but the questions raised here for me is whether the publication of the cartoons (or in Hitchens case the actual words used in the obituary as well) should be edited out of the public record, to which I say thee nay, nay I say. Simply being offended doesn't grant one right to take part in illegal behavior, nor should the responsibility of that behavior be shifted from the actors to the publishers or creators of the offensive content. If some Christians had taken it upon themselves to enact a plan to execute the creator of "Piss Christ", I would be of the same frame of mind, I wouldn't label all Christians under the umbrella of the actions of a radical few, nor do I think all Muslims are radical based on the actions of a few, I just don't want the editors of media determining what is and isn't offensive, I think we are all grown up enough to determine that for ourselves. Angie thought the cartoons were offensive, but the underlying point is she had the opportunity to view them and make that judgement for herself rather than someone making that decision for her.
ReplyDeletelol Leslie, I'm sure Matt would be interested to hear some other views, it seems I've hi-jacked the comments on this one.
ReplyDeleteRe the flag burning, Matt it is my understanding that it is still against the law to burn the American flag in most, if not all States, but since a supreme court ruling in the 1980's (that set a rather clear precedent that it should be considered free speech), most law enforcement agencies are reluctant to enforce the law. Irrespective of whether it's legal or not if you personally think it's ok then you are in the minority. I recall reading about a 2006 poll revealed that over 70% of Americans believed it should be illegal.
Also, I do recall reading articles about flag burners being threatened with death or violence by "patriotic" americans, thats why I picked that particular example.
I did say in my first comment that my feelings on this are mixed.
On the one hand I deplore media censorship & I do believe that Americans are subjected to a higher level of censorship than most other western countries. Is this fair? No I don't think so.
I think that censorship is wrong, period! I also think that the powers that be should stop people seeing anything on the news and stop informing people about their rights lmfao
ReplyDeleteAt times I wonder if it is censorship or laziness or both when it comes to the reporting of the media. I go back and forth in my head on that one.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that many Americans would like flag burning to be illegal, and there arae many laws on the book for the proper treatment of the flag (that are almost never enforced I might add, such as it is not to be displayed outside in inclement weather). One of those is that it is improper to burn the flag, save for discarding a worn and tattered one. The Supreme Court ruling grants that burning the flag can be a form of political protest or speech, and therefore is covered under in the Bill of Rights in the constitution. Because of this ruling, in order to make flag burning illegal now, it would require more than simply writing a law, it would require amending the Constitution of the United States, a long and arduous process to say the least and one that when suggested in Congrees rarely gets out of the starting gate. Ironically, because it is such a drawn out process, it makes for good politics. A candidate can say they are against flag burning and the multitudes will cheer, yet the chance of it becoming illegal are so remote that you have to question whether said politician is saying such a thing because he or she believes it, or because it is politically convenient.
To be honest, I would rather the story of the cartoon not been covered at all rather than half heartedly, it strikes me more as sensationalism than journalism. It is basically a local story, two papers print a cartoon and the creators receive a death threat from a radical few, not really earth shattering stuff here, but it gives you the evil Muslim element, which will certainly drive newspaper sales but isn't neccessarily the view of the Muslim community at large, and unlike some of the stuff I have shown on this page, isn't state sponsored either. It is just basically a couple of nutbags and nothing more, the Danish papers further complicate the issue by all of them running the cartoons after the plot had been broken up. If they were willing to really show some form of courage, they would have ran them originally and not months after the fact.
I am actually more troubled by the first examble that Hitchens gives regarding Butz's obituary, by referencing something Butz had said and then glossing over the actual words that were used, the reader who wasn't alive at that point it time is left to wonder just what the fuss was about. We covered a similar thing on the radio show the other day that has popped back into the media circles based on the likelihood that John McCain will be the Republican nominee for President. He made a joke at a Republican fundraiser 10 years ago, a joke that had him apologizing later to the then President and First Lady (Bill and Hillary). Many media outlets such as the New York Times and my favorite paper The Washington Post among them, covered the story at the time that John McCain had said something and apologized for it but failed to actually say what he apologized for. The reader is left to wonder if it was really all that bad because the media made the call for them by not reprinting the joke. The joke itself was "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" "Because Janet Reno is her father." So in two lines in a public setting, Senator McCain had managed to insult the First Lady and her sexuality, the acting Attorney General, her sexuality and her appearance, and the appearance of a teen aged girl in the pursuit of a good chuckle. I would argue it wasn't the papers place to determine whether that joke was offensive or not, it was the readers (some people would have found that funny, others not so much), but given it was John McCain's words that were the story at the time, the words should have been reported.
Now I have officially hogged my own thread, woohoo. I should give up blogging and just do the commentating thing.