Not running Muhammad cartoons is like avoiding the n-word

That’s what Oregonian managing editor Therese Bottomly says. “We have every right and an ability to publish the cartoons. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.” Ombud Mike Arrieta-Walden points out: “After several days of coverage of protests across the world, however, editors did publish a vague reference to a link through which readers could find the offensive cartoons.” More editor/ombud columns dealing with the Muhammad cartoons:
> Boston Globe “exercised an uncomfortable but necessary restraint” (BG)
> Howell: WP’s Downie made a valid decision not to run the cartoons (WP)
> Acuna doesn’t agree with SacBee editors’ no-cartoons decision (SacBee)
> Diadiun: We’re in the news business, not the taunting business (CPD)
> Seattle Times has “a responsibility to be sensitive to people” (SeaTimes)
> Pynn: Newspapers serve their communities by exercising restraint OS)
> Parry: Running the cartoons now is like shouting “fire” in a theater (Strib)
> Ryerson: “We need to respect all religions and all views” (Indy Star)
> Decision to withhold cartoons may come back to haunt editors (RMN)
> N&O’s Sill sees no compelling news reason to run the cartoons (N&O)
> Getler: I thought “NewsHour” handled the touchy story just right (PBS)

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.