Citing tough judgment call, most US media not using images
One commentator framed the issue in Shakespearean terms this week.
''To print or not to print, that is the question," Miami Herald columnist Frida Ghitis wrote, referring to a choice that major US news organizations are facing: whether to show -- not merely describe -- cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammed that have sparked violent protests throughout the Muslim world.
Overwhelmingly, the American media have opted not to show the images. The high-profile exceptions have been Fox News, The Austin American-Statesman, and The Philadelphia Inquirer. In comments posted on the paper's website this week, Inquirer editor Amanda Bennett said the decision to publish one cartoon, on Feb. 4, was a matter of principle.
''The Inquirer published the image to inform our readers, not to inflame them," Bennett asserted. She noted the paper had also run stories on why the Muslim community might be offended and ''why the American media might find this such a difficult choice."
On Monday, Bennett faced protesters outside the paper's offices and, while affirming their right to disagree, said publishing controversial material was ''not only our profession, it is our obligation."
Difficult, yes. Principled? That depends on what principles are at stake, according to many who have been following the controversy as media players or observers.
Writing in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch this week, Eric Mink boiled the debate down to a simple proposition: ''Riots bad; freedom good." If a government agency controls the process, Mink reasoned, that's censorship. But when a media outlet weighs what to publish or broadcast -- for a host of reasons, from the purely economic to the potential for alienating readers or viewers -- ''it's called editorial judgment," Mink wrote. So far, the Post-Dispatch has not reprinted any of the cartoons.
National Public Radio ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin acknowledged NPR officials ''agonized" over publishing the cartoons on their website. In the end, Dvorkin wrote in his Web column, posting the cartoons was too inflammatory to be justified by free-press concerns. Still, many listeners felt NPR should ''stand up to extremism and intimidation," Dvorkin wrote, as European newspapers have in solidarity with Jyllands-Posten, the Danish paper that ignited the controversy last fall.
Other US news organizations that have embargoed the images include The New York Times, USA Today, the
Yesterday, Boston Globe editor Martin Baron said the paper's decision to report on the controversy without showing the cartoons was consistent with established editorial standards.
''We decided it did not meet our longstanding policy of not publishing words or imagery that are grossly offensive to religious, racial, or ethnic groups," Baron said. ''It's a judgment we face daily and have made many times before."
Few, if any, news organizations have openly expressed fear of violent protesters. However, yesterday The Boston Phoenix cited possible retaliation against the paper and its employees as its main reason for not publishing the images. ''As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure," a statement read, ''this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history."
Aly Colón, who teaches classes on media ethics and diversity at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in Florida, said it's important to keep the controversy in perspective -- not easy to do when people are rioting and even dying over a handful of drawings.
''It's not an easy decision, but it's really an everyday issue in an extraordinary time," Colón said. Because of the backlash, newsrooms are facing ''an almost us-against-them proposition," he added. ''But it's more complicated than that."
In the Inquirer's case, ''I hope it's more than 'I can [publish these], so I am,' " Colón said. ''If you believe it's critically important, then you stand up and do so. But it should be about your own principles, not someone else's."
Dan Kennedy, who teaches journalism at Northeastern University, thinks the American media are making the right call. ''There's nothing newsworthy about the images per se, and you don't need to show them to have people understand the controversy," Kennedy said. Moreover, the cartoons are widely reprinted online, he said, so news editors are aware they can be seen elsewhere.
''That makes the decision not to publish an easier call, certainly," Kennedy said. ''On another level, though, it's harder because it makes editors look more timid."
In that context, the Internet may be an underutilized resource, according to former New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent. Now a fellow at Harvard's Shorenstein Center, Okrent said he understands why editors have decided not to run the cartoons. However, through website links, media outlets are able to post other materials that inform without offending.
''You can warn readers in the newspaper, then warn them again when they go online," Okrent said. ''In effect, you're surrounding it with barbed wire." Personally, he said, ''It's something I'd like to see more of."
Joseph P. Kahn can be reached at jkahn@globe.com. 
