Questionable cartoons
NOT A SINGLE reader contacted me last fall when the Globe first published stories about the controversy over a Danish newspaper's ill-advised move to publish images of the prophet Mohammed that angered Muslims in Denmark. No one clamored then to see the cartoons reprinted.
It wasn't until the story resurfaced two weeks ago -- when European newspapers reproduced the images that sparked large and often violent protests by angry Muslims -- that Globe readers began raising their voices in what has become a visceral clash between different cultures: Muslims who believe that any image of Mohammed is blasphemous and non-Muslims who believe in freedom of expression.
''Given the response of Muslims to the cartoons, it is legitimate for readers to wonder whether the response is justified," wrote David A. Solomon, one of about three dozen readers who contacted me over the last week on this topic. ''And the only way to decide is to see the cartoons."
Another reader, John Constantin, offered this perspective: ''I believe freedom of speech and an independent press are vital to a functioning democracy. I would not want to live in a society that allows images to be censored."
Roughly two-thirds of the readers who called or wrote wanted the Globe to print the cartoons; the rest either praised the paper or pleaded that the images not be reproduced.
Whether or not to print the offensive images is a dilemma that confronted nearly every newsroom last week. To date, fewer than a half-dozen American newspapers have opted to reproduce the cartoons.
A Feb. 4 editorial explained why the Globe's opinion pages would not reprint the Mohammed cartoons.
On the news side, Globe editor Martin Baron said the standard policy is not to print phrases or images that are considered ''to be grossly offensive to a religious, racial, or ethnic group." Readers received that belated explanation in a news article on Friday.The policy also applies to the Globe's website, Boston.com, which has refused to post Internet links to pages that display the images.
In place of the cartoons, news stories have used words to try to describe the images. Still, it's hard to read these stories and not have some curiosity to see the cartoons at the center of so much debate. I found them on the Internet, where many other readers said they went.
It's understandable for readers to feel the Globe's decision not to run the offensive caricatures left them inadequately informed or that the newspaper was somehow caving in to the reprehensible actions and threats by Muslim extremists.
It's also fair to say that most Americans lack enough knowledge of Islam to understand why such cartoons would be considered so painful, so that printing the images could help readers better understand a complicated story.
Dan Wasserman, the Globe's cartoonist who has had his own clashes with editors and readers during more than 20 years of drawing for the newspaper, said editorial cartoons at most dailies are edited for taste.
''There is a standard at most major papers that cartoons don't ridicule religions as religions," Wasserman wrote last week. ''Cartoons often satirize religious institutions and leaders for their actions in the world . . . but not basic tenets of faith. The Danish cartoons set out as their mission the mocking of the Muslim prohibition on the depiction of Mohammed."
Several readers, in demanding that the Mohammed cartoons be printed, argued that publications in the Arab world frequently print images that are virulently anti-Jewish or anti-Christian. Others recalled the times when the Globe published ''Piss Christ," a photograph by Andres Serrano that showed a crucifix covered in urine that offended many Christians. That photo appeared three times in the Globe -- in 1989, 1991, and 1992 -- all during a previous ownership and leadership.
Printing the Mohammed cartoons wouldn't balance any of these arguments, it would only add to the list of controversial journalistic decisions. More wrongs won't make the problem right.
Freedom of speech means that news organizations have the liberty to decide whether or not something meets strict standards of accuracy, fairness, and taste for the sake of the community.
The Globe exercised an uncomfortable but necessary restraint not to print the images.
Being open and transparent about how those decisions are made by editors -- especially over controversial stories and images -- helps readers better understand the dilemma that journalists often face between being free and fair.
The ombudsman represents the readers. His opinions and conclusions are his own. Phone 617-929-3020 or, to leave a message, 929-3022. His e-mail address is ombud@globe.com.
