Sometimes, It Takes A Cartoon

(AP)

The New York Times wouldn't do it. Neither would CBS News, USA Today , The Washington Post, ABC News, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, etc., etc., etc. None of these giants of journalism, guardians of the public trust and protectors of the First Amendment felt it necessary to actually show the public the series of Danish cartoons that caused waves of violent protests all over the world. The protests -- with burning U.S. and Danish flags, anti-American placards and buildings ablaze -- those they could show. But the actual images causing such outrage? No, those were much too controversial.

The Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Sun, and a handful of smaller-market and college papers dared to run at least some of the images which so offend Muslims. What was so wrong? Drawings of the prophet Muhammad. It wasn't just the cartoon caricatures of Muhammad that infuriated an entire religion, we were told, but any kind of image of the prophet at all. So, the media did what they would have us believe they always do in cases of offensive material, they responsibly censored it.

These days it takes a cartoon of a different kind to stand up for the First Amendment rights that news organizations once proudly protected. In two-part series that wrapped up last night, Comedy Central's "South Park" spoke truth to the irrational and irresponsible reaction to this cartoon controversy in the U.S. in general and among the media in particular.

The "South Park" cartoons are being widely discussed in the blogosphere and there are so many levels on which to look at them, the broader conversation is best left there. Suffice it to say three main points come across loud and clear. The first is sense of fear that somehow we're all in danger if these cartoons are shown. In South Park, authorities bury everybody's heads in sand in response to a threat that a likeness of Muhammad will be shown on "Family Guy" (a real cartoon in a cartoon about cartoons, I know, you have to watch the show).

The second point exposes the double standard used by the press as an excuse not to show the images. We've been told time and again that showing these images of Muhammad would offend all Muslims and, anyway, the story can be told without them. Well a whole lot of folks feel their religion is under attack by the media on pretty much a regular basis, but that doesn't seem to be much of a concern. "South Park" deals with it in an in-your-face way by claiming that Comedy Central refused to show a promised image of Muhammad yet they allowed a scene of debauchery in which Jesus defecates on President Bush and the American flag. [It now appears that the creators planned on showing the actual image but Comedy Central would not allow it, sort of reality intruding to make the point even more poignant.]

But the most important point made may well be the seeming abandonment of the First Amendment by the press when things get a little hairy. Freedom of speech is great for them, unless speaking freely might get a Molotov cocktail thrown your way. "South Park" gets to this point in a press conference where the president explains he cannot stop "Family Guy" from showing the Muhammad image because of something called "The First Amendment." Here are the questions "South Park's" fearless press throw at the president:

And what exactly is this "First Amendment" Mr. President?

Mr. President, when your administration came up with this "First Amendment," did it not foresee a problem like this might happen?

What do you intend to do about this "First Amendment?"

Forgive me Mr. President, but this "First Amendment" sounds like a lot of bureaucratic jibbery-joo.

That pretty much says it all. It's enough to make one wonder if the real First Amendment wouldn't be better served if manatees ran the press.

[innov8ion]

I've always believed that South Park is a far better commentator on the issues that we as a nation face than the mainstream media. Stone and Parker have this magical skill of cutting to the point and presenting the crux of the issue in such humorous, almost painfully-obvious ways. Bully for them for winning the Peabody Award; they justly deserve it.

[tdneeley]

Comedy Central should only ask one question when deciding what to broadcast: Is it funny? And as anyone who watches the channel knows their standards aren't too high. Why should a comedy channel or any other secular media outlet care about religious law? While it may or may not be "unlawful" in islam to show Muhammad it is perfectly legal under American law, which is the only law that matters. indeed it is the only law as such. Thankfully in this country we do not enforce the so-called "laws" of religious groups. Why should a comedy channel care what members of a particular religious group think or feel? Much or even most of the content on CC is offensive to someone. Comedy without offense is difficult or impossible. I was dismayed and disturbed by CC's open display of cowardice. Of course it's not necessary for CC to display Muhammad but it's not necessary that CC exist. It's comedy! I expect that kind of craven spinelessness from CBS, the New York Times and CNN, but from Comedy Central?! The pace of self-censorship in America is increasing and not just regarding islam. The immigration debate has shown us several examples, including high schools banning or trying to ban students displaying US flags. Sad that so many people, especially those in power, are so frightened, so unwilling to take risks, so eager to hide behind polite lies. They want a world where no one is offended or provoked or gets their precious little feelings hurt. It's impossible.

[garet6]

Naseera1, I am missing something. Where is it written that producing an image of the prophet is "unlawful"? It certainly isn't against any US law and it isn't against the "law of nature" as far as I can tell.

[naseera1]

I'm sorry. It seems I didn't read your article carefully enough. I now see that you wrote that they were planning on airing just an image of the prophet, not the offensive cartoon. But again, it's not the same because it is unlawful to render drawings of the prophet while it is not unlawful to do so with Jesus in the Christian religion. Although South Park has aired an episode before entitled "Super Best Friends" in which the Prophet Muhammad is visually depicted. And that Jesus cartoon isn't even insulting towards Christianity or Christians. But again, just because Comedy Central will allow one thing doesn't mean that other media outlets would. And you didn't mention whether or not The New York Times, CBS News, USA Today, etc, have published anything in the past which has incited as much rage as the Muhammad cartoons have done, or depicts somebody or something of another religion which is unlawful to depict according to that religion, or just if they have published anything that could be considered extremely blasphemous or offensive to a huge group of people. Because I think that is very relevant to your argument. However, even if they had, I personally don't see why it should be necessary for them to publish the cartoons if they value freedom of speech.

[naseera1]

Why might Comedy Central "allow a rendering of Jesus Christ defecating on the American flag (something patently offensive) but not allow the most innocent image of Muhammad to be shown"? First of all, it does not seem to be unlawful in the Christian religion to render images of Jesus. Secondly, the Muhammad cartoon portrayed Islam as a terrorist religion and all its followers as terrorists, whereas the picture of Jesus defecating on President Bush and the American flag sends the message that the Christian God is against President Bush, his administration and its policies. Therefore, the Muhammad cartoon can be seen as a form of discrimination against an entire group of people based on their religious inclination, while the Jesus cartoon is just insulting President Bush. A good reason not to show the former but allow the latter. Also, you speak of the media as if every media outlet is the same. But a channel like Comedy Central is entirely different from a news channel or a newspaper. For one thing, Comedy Central is a cable television channel, which allows for more offensive material, like the Jesus cartoon and South Park, to be published. Secondly, because it is COMEDY central, you would expect it to have a different set of standards from other media outlets such as the ones mentioned in your list. Did they ever publish anything similar to the Jesus cartoon? And Muslims still feel their religion is under attack by the media in other ways which doesn't seem to be a concern.

[Dave_Newton]

rmichem: It's "Freedom's just another word for NOTHIN' left to lose." Don't feel bad. Janis did slur her words.

[peterbaldwin-2009]

Vaughn, like the Anchoress, is decompensating, obsessively regurgitating angst over the Danish cartoon debacle, while demonstrating a fastidious preoccupation with dirty words. Felix Unger reincarnate.

[peterbaldwin-2009]

How about Long Dong &%&# (manhood) Chaney? You guys look silly.

[peterbaldwin-2009]

If Jesus urinated on the flag (after a few beers), wouldn't that be like holy water. Jesus wouldn't defecate on George Bush in a million years, but I wonder if George Bush might like to defecate on Jesus. Here's some serious, meaningful consorship from Vern: Long Dong &#&? (&#@#%?) Chaney and get off your high &%#?@ (heroin?)

[v_ververs]

Andrew, Perhaps I'm mistaken but as I recall the explanation given by new organizations (including CBS News) was that Islam prohibits any rendering of Muhammad and it was not necessary to offend those sensibilities to tell the story. In fact, Linda Mason, senior vice presdident for standards at CBS News told us in a post that very thing. In any event, would there be any reason at all why this case should be treated any differently than images or stories that offend any other group, religious or not? I think it almost impossible to defend the idea that, in covering this story, there was a good reason not to show the images that caused all the uproar. Why did Comedy Central allow a rendering of Jesus Christ defecating on the American flag (something patently offensive) but not allow the most innocent image of Muhammad to be shown. Is there really any explanation for that? As for the ABC showing of the image, I was unaware and withdraw them from the still-enormous list of those unwilling to display the images.