NY Times illustrates cartoon story

Faced with an ethical dilemma, the New York Times has chosen to illustrate a report on the so-called Cartoon Wars with an image which is offensive to some with religious sensibilities.

The picture they have chosen is Chris Ofili’s portrait of of the Virgin Mary, painted with elephant dung.

Can’t you just see editors scurrying around, dithering on this one?

Editor A: What to do…this story is HUGE, and by any ethical journalistic standard, we should be showing our readers what the fuss is about. We’d do it if the cartoons were about Christians, or Jews, of Buddhists…but…but…MOMMY! I scared!

Editor B: I’ve got it! Let’s re-print the picture of Chris Ofili’s Virgin Mary! The one with the elephant dung, that’s the ticket! We’ll illustrate the POINT of the riots, without actually risking the wrath of anyone.

Editor A: That’s BRILLIANT! Haul out the so-called Virgin Mary and let her act as a stand-in for Muhammed! It’s not like that painting is REALLY offensive, anyway! The Catholics always get their panties in wads, until the bars open!

Editor C: I’ve got it right here in my hard-drive! Hmmmm…you know, I never noticed before that the Virgin Mary in this picture is surrounded by magazine cut-outs of genitalia and buttocks! I don’t ever remember reading about that! There are vulvas and things on this picture! Can we print that?

Editor A: Print it, just don’t mention it! If you don’t mention it, people just think it’s butterflies! And only repressed, uptight Catholics will care, anyway, and they’re all pervs and drunks and every one of their priests are pedarasts who go after young boys…

Editor B: But…you know…it’s not because they’re gay. Not that there is anything wrong with being a gay priest…

Editor A: No, no, of course not. The pedarasts are just sexually immature because of the repressive nature of the church. Some critics say that if the church would just ordain women and eliminate that whole celibacy requirement…

Editor C: Or, you know…if priests just kept their vows in the first place…Now, if we’re done with all the PC Orthodox Qualifiers, can we get on with it?

Editor B: (raising eyebrow) “What are you, a conservative, or something?”

Editor C: (shrinking) “I’m just thinking, that’s all! (Trembles) No. I’ll be good. Catholics are uptight. Celibacy is dumb. (completely panicked) There is no god but Soros and Sheehan is their prophet? Umm…Bush lied, people died?

Editor A: (lowering eyebrow, somewhat mollified) “Better. Now, you take that picture of the so-called Virgin Mary and use it to make the point about what these so-called “religious” people consider “offensive” art. These yahoos don’t get it that all art is moral! The Catholics will only be mildly annoyed, the blogs can’t say we’re not printing ANYTHING about the rioting, and the Muslims will have no reason to take offense.”

Editor B: (livid) Stupid freaking bloggers! &%$# wannabee writers holding our feet to the fire like they’re actual journalists, or something!

Editor A: (pats him on back) There, there, my tolerant, Ivy-league, J-school, enlightened friend. Don’t let them get you down!

Editor B: Freaking Powerline and Instapundit with their cutesy names and geeky haircuts! Freaking Malkin!

Editor C: Some say she clanks when she walks!

Editor A: (eyebrow raised again) Are you having a problem, today?

Editor C: Dick Cheney runs the show. Condi Rice is Aunt Jemima. Karl Rove is Darth Vader. Bush lied, people died?

Editor A: (barely placated) Better.

Editor B: (sobbing) I just get so frustrated, sometimes!

Editor A: Don’t worry, friends…after the Democrats take back the house in ’06, impeachment proceedings will begin, and all of this will go away.

Editor C: (thoughtfully looking at painting of Virgin Mary) I’m sorry to interrupt, but…you know…I don’t know if using this picture is such a good idea, after all. I thought I read somewhere that Muslims revere Mary almost as much as the Catholics do!

Editors A,B and C: (clutching) MOMMY!

Okay, silliness aside, one can understand a newspaper might be afraid to publish these cartoons. To not admit that there is a risk involved in doing so would be outright dishonest. But news organizations are supposed to care more about the story than the risks, aren’t they, particularly when they are supposed to be the guardians of free speech?

One can see everyone’s point – the point of Michelle Malkin and those who are trying very hard to tell the whole story: that the cartoons are actually rather silly, that they originally were published in Egypt, not Denmark, that they were published 5 months ago, but it took a while to get the Danish flags delivered and the signs ordered so that chaos could be called for.

One can see their point, and agree that free-speech is in danger when a supposedly free press censors itself.

Although, in truth, we see the press spiking stories it doesn’t like all the time, or censoring itself when an inconvenient fact (say, for instance, the fact that illegal Hollywood wiretapper Anthony Pellicano once worked for a former first lady) needs to be unmentioned. So, who knows how free the press really is, these days.

One can also see the point of Hugh Hewitt and others who say, we’re risking losing enormous progress with moderate Muslims by not being sensitive to their own sensibilities. One can see the State Department’s point when it warns that throwing gas on a fire may harm us all.

One can see all of it. To a point.

The point, being when people start blowing things up and killing others, instead of merely protesting and then getting on with their lives.

A serious news editor does not have an enviable job, today. Terrorism has seeped into the newsrooms in the form of intimidation to silence.

It’s funny when you think about it. Practically from day one of President Bush’s first term, we have had to listen to people like Tim Robbins tell us about “the chill wind…” blowing, silencing all dissent. We heard his opinion because he wrote a play about it and numerous op-eds (all of which were published freely, by a free and comfortable press) and their publication patently belied his bellyaching. We’re heard Hillary assert – loudly – that dissent has not been allowed by the Bushies, even as we have read nothing but reams and reams of daily, hourly dissent, heard it from every news channel and sitcom.

This “Nazi” president has never done anything to thwart the free speech of those who would stalk him, or curse him, or caricature him or distort his policies. Usually, he just says, “we can disagree; that shows democracy is working.”

Up to now, the only silencing of the press has been by their own editing pencils.

Today – this very day – the media are finding themselves facing a true “chill wind.” They are getting the smallest taste of what President Bush has had to live with every day – a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” world of seemingly few options. Bush has shown real fortitude in living on that tightrope for the last 5 years, trying to balance freedom with safety, and responsibility with tremendous risk. Now, the press – if it is going to remain free – will have to do the same. This is the line in the sand for them – where they stand or fold.

One must recognize that their decision, in this climate, could well mean their lives. It could mean their homes, their children.

That’s what terrorism is, and that’s what it does. It makes one terrified. It renders one impotent in fear. Thus one becomes complacent. Obedient. “Why,” one thinks, “should my kids be at risk because of my job?”

Why should anyone’s kids be at risk because of a job? Or a cartoon? Or an opinion? And yet, here we are.

But acquiesce to intimidation, and the kids will be at risk tomorrow, too. And the next day. That’s what giving in to terror does – it encourages more of the same.

If there was ever a time when the press should take an example from President Bush and say “we don’t negotiate with terrorists,” this might be it. Perhaps they are finding that what President Bush has done for the last 5 years is a damn sight harder than they knew. No, one does not envy what editors are going through, today.