As the protests over the Danish political cartoons of Muhammad grow into an international crisis, it might be helpful for journalists to look at the broader tension caused by religious intolerance. Many of the reporters I've talked to insist on framing this as a choice between the freedom to criticize and the fear of offending people. It's a reasonable frame, one that editors and publishers of all types face. As the violence increases, it's become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Many Westerners, fed up with the hypocrisy of the violence, are saying: Criticize or comment on Islam, and look what happens.
Yet, there is evidence of ever-increasing pressure in our world to avoid annoying religious sensibilities of all kinds. NBC recently cancelled "
The Book of Daniel" after three episodes and a lot of pressure from some Christians. Rolling Stone Magazine is hearing from Christians this week as Kanye West appears on the cover in a crown of thorns, a la Mel Gibson. But this choice between offending people and steering clear of religion isn't really a choice at all, not for journalists. It's a false dichotomy. Editors have always had many alternatives at their disposal. At one end of this spectrum is an over the top political cartoon, bound to offend some. And at the other end is silence. In the middle there are a million stories, where fairness and reason can reign supreme. The cartoons of Muhammad appeared last September in
Jyllands-Posten, the Danish paper,
commissioned by an editor in response to rising tensions between a growing Muslim immigrant population and a secular society
Political cartoons are perhaps the worst way to inspire debate. Like the TV show, the Book of Daniel and The Rolling Stone cover with Kanye as Jesus, cartoons provoke laughter, anger and even a second look. But journalism is so much more than mere provocation. Journalism exists not in a vacuum, but in a community. It is rooted in civic life. So journalists must ask: What do I hope to achieve? Why am I writing this story or taking this photo or publishing this cartoon? And then the journalist must ask: Is this the best way to serve my audience? I'm not suggesting we do away with political cartoons. I'm just offering that they are perhaps the least of what we do in journalism. Political cartoons are void of value when the rest of the newsroom fails to explore the thorny issues that make us all uncomfortable. First do the journalism, then make the jokes.
