| Editorial freedom also means responsibility LARRY CORNIES, Editorial Page Editor -- The London Free Press February 13, 2006 |
It was British novelist and politician Edward George Bulwer-Lytton (1803-73) who coined the now-famous
adage that "the pen is mightier than the sword."
(Incidentally, it was also Bulwer-Lytton who began one of his novels with, "It was a dark and stormy night," a
line cartoonist Charles M. Schulz relentlessly parodied through his canine character, Snoopy. And every year
there is an international contest, named for Bulwer-Lytton, in which writers compete for the most wretched
opening line of a novel.)
If we define the word "pen" broadly enough to include a cartoonist's ink and easel, it's easy to see the truth of
Bulwer-Lytton's hackneyed line, especially over the past week.
The global furor over a set of editorial cartoons, published in some Scandinavian newspapers in recent
months, is proof of how powerful images, however crudely rendered, can be, and of the sensitivity with which
readers "read" them. Muslim outrage over the depictions of the Prophet Mohammed has resulted in
demonstrations, violence and, in some cases, death.
The Free Press has not had an editorial cartoonist on staff since the talented and popular Merle Tingley
("Ting") retired about 20 years ago. But as the editor responsible for choosing our daily editorial cartoon from
the submissions of a dozen or so freelancers and syndicates, I've had more than just a passing interest in this
issue.
As a journalist, I am a defender of press freedom. But in the current controversy, freedom-of-the-press
arguments are being trotted out where they don't belong. They're being used as a cover for bad judgment,
poor taste and a series of offensive choices.
Mass media in the West, such as this newspaper, enjoy a fairly high degree of freedom. We could, on any
given day, publish stories of gratuitous violence, explicit or gory photos, insulting rhetoric and flagrantly
offensive cartoons. We would be within our legal right to do so, except for material that was libellous or
contemptuous of our legal system.
Yet we don't -- although readers occasionally disagree -- because we know that they expect more of us than
simply exercising, in sophomoric or capricious or arbitrary ways, our press freedoms to their absolute limits.
They expect us to observe standards of fairness, good taste, decency and respect -- standards that are
constantly shifting.
But I'm bothered by more than just this one aspect of the cartoon controversy.
I'm bothered by the lack of acknowledgment in the mainstream media throughout the non-Muslim world that
other faiths -- including Christianity and Judaism -- have their share of radicals, too.
Extremists live within nearly all religious communities. The current media fixation with Islamic radicalism tends
to marginalize the voices of the far more populous and representative groups within Islam that believe in the
value of reasoned discussion and dialogue.
I'm bothered by the growing incapacity of our western culture to grasp the meaning of devotion, in the sense
of what it means to be devout or wholly committed to an ideal.
In the current controversy, it is our inability to understand what might be so objectionable about a few
cartoons. After all, we satirize politicians and other types of leaders regularly. What's the harm, we ask, in a
few sketches, regardless of the insistence of the Prophet Mohammed and the practice of his followers not to
succumb to the idolatry of likenesses -- even in the form of drawings?
Here in the West, our post-religious orientations do not serve us well in cases such as this. We seem less and
less capable of empathizing with -- let alone really understanding -- those whose lives are guided by tradition,
personal conviction, obedience and scriptural truths. This being the case, cross-cultural understanding
comes very hard.
Finally, I'm bothered by what I believe is the inability of most types of journalism to play a meaningful role in
easing the tensions it has helped create. Mass-media journalism is in the business of compacting, simplifying
and abbreviating, using the shorthand of stereotype and commonly used language to relay information. Those
habits are not useful here.
In 1891, the Anglo-Irish playwright and author Oscar Wilde wrote this rejoinder to Bulwer-Lytton's already
famous line: "It was a fatal day when the public discovered that the pen is mightier than the paving-stone, and
can be made as offensive as a brickbat. They at once sought for the journalist, found him, developed him and
made him their industrious and well-paid servant. It is greatly to be regretted, for both their sakes."
Most days, I'd consider Wilde's observation an exaggeration. But with respect to the cartoon controversy, my
fear is that he's right.
adage that "the pen is mightier than the sword."
(Incidentally, it was also Bulwer-Lytton who began one of his novels with, "It was a dark and stormy night," a
line cartoonist Charles M. Schulz relentlessly parodied through his canine character, Snoopy. And every year
there is an international contest, named for Bulwer-Lytton, in which writers compete for the most wretched
opening line of a novel.)
If we define the word "pen" broadly enough to include a cartoonist's ink and easel, it's easy to see the truth of
Bulwer-Lytton's hackneyed line, especially over the past week.
The global furor over a set of editorial cartoons, published in some Scandinavian newspapers in recent
months, is proof of how powerful images, however crudely rendered, can be, and of the sensitivity with which
readers "read" them. Muslim outrage over the depictions of the Prophet Mohammed has resulted in
demonstrations, violence and, in some cases, death.
The Free Press has not had an editorial cartoonist on staff since the talented and popular Merle Tingley
("Ting") retired about 20 years ago. But as the editor responsible for choosing our daily editorial cartoon from
the submissions of a dozen or so freelancers and syndicates, I've had more than just a passing interest in this
issue.
As a journalist, I am a defender of press freedom. But in the current controversy, freedom-of-the-press
arguments are being trotted out where they don't belong. They're being used as a cover for bad judgment,
poor taste and a series of offensive choices.
Mass media in the West, such as this newspaper, enjoy a fairly high degree of freedom. We could, on any
given day, publish stories of gratuitous violence, explicit or gory photos, insulting rhetoric and flagrantly
offensive cartoons. We would be within our legal right to do so, except for material that was libellous or
contemptuous of our legal system.
Yet we don't -- although readers occasionally disagree -- because we know that they expect more of us than
simply exercising, in sophomoric or capricious or arbitrary ways, our press freedoms to their absolute limits.
They expect us to observe standards of fairness, good taste, decency and respect -- standards that are
constantly shifting.
But I'm bothered by more than just this one aspect of the cartoon controversy.
I'm bothered by the lack of acknowledgment in the mainstream media throughout the non-Muslim world that
other faiths -- including Christianity and Judaism -- have their share of radicals, too.
Extremists live within nearly all religious communities. The current media fixation with Islamic radicalism tends
to marginalize the voices of the far more populous and representative groups within Islam that believe in the
value of reasoned discussion and dialogue.
I'm bothered by the growing incapacity of our western culture to grasp the meaning of devotion, in the sense
of what it means to be devout or wholly committed to an ideal.
In the current controversy, it is our inability to understand what might be so objectionable about a few
cartoons. After all, we satirize politicians and other types of leaders regularly. What's the harm, we ask, in a
few sketches, regardless of the insistence of the Prophet Mohammed and the practice of his followers not to
succumb to the idolatry of likenesses -- even in the form of drawings?
Here in the West, our post-religious orientations do not serve us well in cases such as this. We seem less and
less capable of empathizing with -- let alone really understanding -- those whose lives are guided by tradition,
personal conviction, obedience and scriptural truths. This being the case, cross-cultural understanding
comes very hard.
Finally, I'm bothered by what I believe is the inability of most types of journalism to play a meaningful role in
easing the tensions it has helped create. Mass-media journalism is in the business of compacting, simplifying
and abbreviating, using the shorthand of stereotype and commonly used language to relay information. Those
habits are not useful here.
In 1891, the Anglo-Irish playwright and author Oscar Wilde wrote this rejoinder to Bulwer-Lytton's already
famous line: "It was a fatal day when the public discovered that the pen is mightier than the paving-stone, and
can be made as offensive as a brickbat. They at once sought for the journalist, found him, developed him and
made him their industrious and well-paid servant. It is greatly to be regretted, for both their sakes."
Most days, I'd consider Wilde's observation an exaggeration. But with respect to the cartoon controversy, my
fear is that he's right.