The Offense
By now most of you have heard about the controversy surrounding the infamous Danish cartoons that are being blamed for setting off riots around the world. The cartoons, depicting the Prophet Mohammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, were originally printed by a Danish newspaper in September. They have sparked protests and boycotts across the Muslim world.
The View from the Upset
"Any insult to the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) is an insult to more than 1 billion Muslims and an act like this must never be allowed to be repeated," Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in a statement
Journalist/Press View
"We must defend freedom of expression and if I had to chose, I prefer the excess of caricature over the excess of censure," Nicolas Sarkozy, France's Interior Minister, said. "There is no reason to make an exception for one religion over another."
In order to better understand this issue, I am going to upack the ethical issues involved in this case.
Values/ Principles
Right to Privacy
Truth-telling
Need-to-Know
Fairness and Balance
Credibility
Conflict of Interest
Minimizing Harm
Values/Principles in Conflict
Minimizing Harm vs. Need-to-Know
Minimizing Harm vs. Fairness and Balance
Minimizing Harm vs. Credibility
Statement of Ethical Issue
In September 2005, Danish newspapers published a series of cartoons, depicting the Prophet Mohammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb. Five months after the row of cartoons had originally been distributed in newspapers around Europe, Asia and Africa, some European Muslims began protesting the cartoon the first week of February 2006. After saying press freedom was more important than the protests, newspapers in France, Germany and Spain reprinted the Danish cartoons. Currently U.S. papers are refusing to print the cartoon row. The ethical issue in question is whether or not the moral agents, U.S. newspaper editors, should publish the cartoon; is it more harmful to publish or not publish the cartoon row?
Analysis
Minimizing Harm vs. Need-to-Know
According to Reauters UK, Many people in Afghanistan are not aware of the row over the cartoons. Additionally, the cartoons have been in circulation for five months and this is the first controversy being found over the drawings. Mohammad is not the first religious symbol to be defamed in a publication. Less than 2 weeks ago singer Kayne West was depicted as Jesus Christ on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. The press did not hesitate to cover this story. Need-to-Know wins out.
Minimizing Harm vs. Fairness and Balance
Again, the press has never hesitated to publish defaming photos or drawings of other religious leaders and symbols, so why would Mohammad be any different? Fairness and Balance wins out.
Minimizing Harm vs. Credibility
If the U.S. news media does not publish these cartoons in an attempt to be 'politically correct' they will jeopardize their credibility to be a reliable source of information.
External Factors
Code of Ethics: The Society of Professional Journalists has a code of ethics that encourages "Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know."
Competition: International papers have printed the cartoons. In terms of competition the U.S. media is falling behind daily.
Company Policy: N/A
Audience: Yes, Muslim readers and supporters might be upset
Legal Constraint: None.
Precedence: Precedence has shown that any religion/religious symbol/religious person is free game for being photographed and drawn. While Mohammad is not living, his personage is a public figure who has less right-to-privacy and criticism than a non-public figure.
Duties/ Loyalties
Individual Conscience: Yes
Institution: Yes
Objects of Decision: No
Professional Colleagues: Yes
Financial Supporters: Yes
Society: Yes
Moral Theories
Duty: Need-to-Know, Credibility, Newsworthiness, Truth and Accuracy
Consequence: Minimizing Harm,
Golden Mean: Reprint the cartoons with a clarified statement from the editor. Publish due response to the print.
Final Decision
Run it.
Closing Thoughts
While this particular cartoon row has caused political and religious uproar in the past week, the U.S. publication of the drawings would not have made our already volitle Middle Eastern relations any worse off. I think that the U.S. media made a poor ethical decision in not running the cartoon row, and at this point it would be a little odd for them to publish the drawings.
I would love to hear your thoughts on why this cartoon row is just now causing political and religious uproar, five months after their initial publication. Has the U.S. made the right decision in not publishing the cartoon row? Why?
2 comments:
Since you ask whether the US has made the right decision, here’s my two cents in an ever-changing opinion from a media/world perspective. :)
I'm personally glad the cartoons haven't been printed.
The media talks about situations all the time without showing every part of the event. You can cover a story without publishing offensive material. The question isn’t “need to know.” The public knows about what has happened. The question is with how much detail do they need to know? Do we publish the picture of a bloody corpse after a suicide? It would show the whole story. The decision of “how much” comes up all the time.
Kanye West offended many, but the truth is, Christianity has many symbols of Jesus (from beautiful cathedrals to bobble head dolls). Someone depicting him isn’t new. But Christianity doesn’t have any overarching understanding that a printed version of their leader is offensive (as offensive as it may be). As I understand it, it is incredibly offensive in Muslim belief to depict the prophet or write the prophet’s name.
Legally and culturally, we have free speech in the United States and shouldn’t be afraid to print anything. It’s fine. But ethically, on the world stage, our decisions must move from ‘fine’ to ‘right’.
Minimizing harm is about more than offending a few Muslims. On the world stage, publishing the cartoons has given some extremists a rallying point toward violence. Publishing them in America gives ammunition to extremists, which may cause them to harm more innocent Americans. It isn’t fair or justified, but publication here could mean deaths abroad.
Would my journalism professors be happy with the decision to minimize harm? Maybe not. But with the current world situation, it’s sometimes best not to publish something just because we feel the public ‘needs to know.’
Please go to my blog and look for the post "wow, is Allah delicate"
Post a Comment