Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
Access-A-Ride Renders Bike Lane Inaccessible
The UWS Gets Its Very Own Apple Store
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
Video: Close Encounters Above Central Park?
The NY Press's editorial staff quit over the paper's decision not to publish the controversial Mohammed cartoon from the conservative Danish paper/tinderbox. The Politicker broke the news and printed editor-in-chief Harry Siegel's memo; here's part of it:
New York Press, like so many other publications, has suborned its own professed principles. For all the talk of freedom of speech, only the New York Sun locally and two other papers nationally have mustered the minimal courage needed to print simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons that have been used as a pretext for great and greatly menacing violence directed against journalists, cartoonists, humanitarian aid workers, diplomats and others who represent the basic values and obligations of Western civilization. Having been ordered at the 11th hour to pull the now-infamous Danish cartoons from an issue dedicated to them, the editorial group—consisting of myself, managing editor Tim Marchman, arts editorJonathan Leaf and one-man city hall bureau Azi Paybarah, chose instead to resign our positions...It's is pretty shocking that not even the NYC tabloids haven't published the cartoons - they're always looking for something to incite insanity. We wonder if the State Department has been issuing secret warnings to management at media outlets. President Bush, in his remarks with Jordan's King Abdullah, said this morning that he (and America) believes in free press. The NY Times' Michael Kimmelman had an interesting essay about how the cartoon inspired this violence, and reminds us about Rudy Giuliani's furor over the Chris Ofili "Virgin Mary" painting that incorporated elephant dung.We have no illusions about the power of the Press (NY Press, we mean), but even on the far margins of the world-historical stage, we are not willing to side with the enemies of the values we hold dear, a free press not least among them.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I'm very puzzled by the strange stances NY papers have been taking. What's with all this talk about neglecting the responsibility of the press by publishing the cartoons? Since when has the press been bound by Shari'ah law (or any other boundaries dictated by religion)?
Does anyone even read the NY Press anymore?
Last time I checked the United States isn't a theocracy (thank dog for that!), although there are a whole bunch of hateful nutjobs that want to change that [cough]American Family Association[cough].
The media should be free to publish and/or broadcast these images even if some people find them offensive.
What really is offensive is people caving into religious nutjobs and these nutjobs who want to shove their religious viewpoint down other peoples throats, be it NBC caving in over The Book of Daniel (I am an Episcopalian and I loved it) or this cartoon thing.
At this late date is there any news value in printing the cartoons, or would the Press be publishing them just for the sake of doing so?
I'd like to see Gothamist grow some balls and post those pictures, or at least a link to them.
Here is a link to the drawings. http://www.perlentaucher.de/artikel/2888.html
I am astounded by the discovery that at least the first of the drawings (and perhaps the second and fourth as well) are not attacks on Islam or the Prophet, but are rather mild mockery of the commissioning editor of the Danish paper. I have read nothing in the description of these drawings in the American press which even hints at this fact and therefore conclude that the American press has quite failed to report the story truthfully - and perhaps cannot report it without reproducing the drawings, or, if balls be lacking, providing the link.
At this point, it's not news to publish the cartoons. It might be news to discuss them and the world's reaction to them, but to publish the cartoons again and again is unnecessary.
The team that walked off the NYPress has gotten far too much press about this and to me, it had less to do with principles and more to do with realizing 2 things: 1. they worked for a paper that no one read and 2. hey these 'principles' could get me some press and a better job.
Sure there's a news value for printing the cartoons. Not too many in America have seen them. If they are "printing them just for the sake of doing so" (i.e. a principled stand in defense of a free press), what's wrong with that? I'd like to think that most of the press aren't merely rabblerousing scamps.
The argument against publishing the cartoons is not just that they paint Muslims in a bad light -- it's that in the Muslim faith, it is considered a crime to draw Mohammed at all, no matter whether it is flattering or insulting.
The reaction in the Arab world is a result of this, not of the simple fact that the Danish newspaper may have insulted their culture and/or beliefs.
This whole thing is a poignant example of the problems that cultural misunderstandings can cause.
It's considered a crime to draw Mohammed at all. But is it a crime to BLOW PEOPLE THE FUCK UP?
What an irrelevant religion.
The 5ive Pillars of Islam
1. Blowing up anyone who isn't Muslim is OK.
2. Undermine women and make them second class citizens.
3. Drawing Mohmammed is a crime.
4. Women are filthy.
5. Any disagreements with any of these will mean an insult to Allah and will lead to #1, no exceptions.
The media is free to print whatever they choose. The Right od Freedom of speech also implies Responsibility.
While, IMO, the protestors are going way overboard, but re-printing the images may be like screaming Fire in a crowded theater. Free to do, but most are responsible not enough not to do it.
I agree with those who suggest that radical Islamic PR experts are using this minor bit of offense to fan increasingly big fires of fervor and hatred. After all, some of these cartoons have been floating around for months. What saddens me is watching people who have no experience living in a free society being manipulated so easily. I pity them, and I don't like where this is all heading. You know what the worst of the worst want: a real holy war, a crusade, with heads on spikes.
This is all crazy. First, while the issue of the cartoon is important--ie: freedom of expression--this is an assinine way to express that freedom.
How come all of the sudden all of these publications are all up in arms about freedom of expression when there are truly larger issues at the table. Such as the complete negligence of American media to be truly critical of the Bush administration and it's outright lies to the the American people? Yes, that sounds like someone railing in the letters page of the NY Post, but c'mon already!
This cartoon issue is disturbing but in many ways is yet another news media distraction from real issues out there.
Why aren't other news pulication staffers--such as those at the NY Times--quitting over the outright lies they published in support of the lies that got us into this Iraq quagmire?
If Watergate were to have happened today, it wouldn't. Nobody would have the balls to really speak out and really say things about real things.
The NYC papers are useless if they don't publish the cartoons as it's bonafide news. About a year ago the NY Press had a lot of trouble when they published a comical article making fun of the Pope. Chuck Schumer and H. Clinton made the extraordinary effort to denounce the paper and Anthony Weiner instructed people to steal stacks of the papers and put them in the trash. Schumer and Clinton's successfull campaign against free speech is working as publishers now close their eyes to the news. Harry Siegel & staff did the right thing.
#12 It's not only irresponsible, but I don't think it's legal to yell fire in a crowded theater, at least in the US.
For number #10, are there any Muslim Gothamist readers here who can respond to his moronic rant, if it's even worth the time.
All religions are false. Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, Satanism, Fundamentalist Veganism, and every other hokey religion is all based on faith in something that does not exist. I personally choose not to believe in this self-righteous, supernatural, ghost and goblin, hocus-pocus nonsense.
The world is not flat, the moon is not made of cheese, and rain doesn't come from angel tears.
But of course, I support the right for all of you to find feeble attempts at understanding your existence. Go ahead, eat the body of your lord, worship your sun god, do a rain dance, and pray to nothing, while us non-believers get on with REAL LIFE.
Mankind's addiction to religion has caused a lot more horrors to humanity than the threat of going to hell for sleeping around, or eating cow meat on every third-fifth-tenth Friday.
Religion is death. Open up a history book.
As much as I abhor the Christian Conservative ideology(which, IMHO, is neither Christian nor conservative, but I digress), and orthodoxy in general, I don't think publicizing a cartoon mocking Jesus or Mary or the Holocaust would result in bodies in the streets. Olfici's art provoked outrage, Giuliani's reaction provoked outrage, but no one was shot, no embassy was stormed, no builidngs blown up. There wasn't three days of violent riots when Sinead O'Connor tore her picture of the Pope. Movie theaters weren't torched when Mel Gibson screened his anti-Semitic screed.
I understand the cultural differences here, the immorality of picturing Mohammed in any form. But if Islam wants to be accepted by the West, its followers (which, as with all religions, includes fringe elements) are going to have to learn to live with Western values and find ways to air their outrage without resorting to violence. Where is their leadership? Where are the cooler heads? Why has no one stepped forward and scolded the violent for casting what is supposed to be a peace-loving religion in such a harsh light? Why has no one disavowed them, as Rabin disavowed Jewish extremeists or various Popes disavowed the work of the IRA? Has anyone stepped up and said, "I don't know what god you're killing in the name of, but it is not the god who spoke to Mohammed?"
It does make one wonder whether the West (which has enough violence and intolerance, thanks) and Islam will ever be compatible, will ever be able to live together. Or will people in the Muslim community be condemed to having to say things like "I'm Muslim, but I'm not one of the crazy ones" forever?
The cumulative effect of this violence is decisions like NY Press's (and others) to not publish the cartoons. The very definition of repression, which often starts with something as small as one editor saying to another "we're asking for trouble."
Problem is, asking for trouble is what this country was built on.
It's not news, it's just a bunch of bullshit. The NYP shouldn't have to publish it, they should stick to things that matter unlike stupid cartoons that further stupid people get offended by.
How predictable that the NY Times chooses to reprint a picture of Mary covered with elephant dung rather than the cartoons supposedly inciting these riots. Is the Mary picture "news"? Of course not. But the lefties at the Times (and at Gothamist) are 1) cowards and 2) slaves to PC sensibilities.
And there is no "cultural misunderstanding" at issue here. You can go to museums in Islamic countries and see Mohammed portrayed. These are just rent-a-mobs sent out to cause trouble - Muslim versions of MoveOn.org.
Of course it is NOT illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Justice Holmes spoke only of shouting "fire" falsely. And, presumably, it is not criminal to shout such a warning in the good faith belief that there is a fire, even if it should turn out that nothing is burning.
Those who argue that at this point there is no need to show or know the content of the drawings because such inflamatory details are irrelevant to the discussion clearly have not bothered to investigate the matter. The actual content of many of the drawings has been substantially misrepresented in the western press.
Quare whether the publishers of the NY Press were being responsable in not inflaming matters, or were merely being prudent in protexcting their capital investment.
Hey, Nola, been a long time...
First off, name five people killed by MoveOn.org.
Now that that's off the table, I also have an issue with choosing to publicize the Ofili and not the cartoon. It's one of the rewards of violence... no one is getting killed over Ofili; and being willing to resort to self-righteous violence means you'll be less likely to have your sensibilities upset in the future.
Makes me wonder how we stay peaceful.
As for rent-a-mobs... wish you're right, pal.
I find it amusing, and baffling, to read and hear the fervor of people defending the freedom of expression through the act of publishing these absolutely meaningless, unhumorous cartoons, while all the time hiding, cowering behind some lousy excuses to not report on what matters most: transparency of our own goverments, social justice, education, ignorance, bigotry, etc, in our very own societies. Get your priorities of freedom straight, people!
These freedom-loving people also likely voted for Bloomberg, a man who wholly supported the NYPD's unlawful tactics of arresting scores of innocent people for simply voicing their dissent (or simply getting lunch near people who voice their dissent).
RE: [10] Posted by: Papercutninja | February 8, 2006 01:31 PM
ur an idiot!
New Yorker - You are free to sit and stew over your various frustrations. But there are other newsworthy events in the world and this is one of them. Why don't you send a letter to ESPN and demand they stop covering sports until your idea of social perfection has been achieved?
Tim N. - I agree with your observations - though "asking for trouble" isn't the best way to sum up our founding principles. And I happily concede that Muslim kooks are more dangerous than Democrat kooks.
Anti-Theism - What a shame that you missed out on the opportunity to live in a religion-free zone. The Soviet Union, for example. What fun that would have been.
Oh, I don't know... I think George and John and Ben and Long Tom were askin' for a whole peck o'trouble. One of the reasons I love them so.
Tim N.
Totally agree with just about everything you said, but what's not being mentioned too loudly is that many, MANY prominent Muslim clerics HAVE denounced the riots and violence as loudly as they've denounced the cartoons themselves. Some of my own Muslim friends have just shrugged over the whole mess saying, "Big deal, it's just a cartoon," but whether intenitonallly or not, the media is largely ignoring these voices. (Somewhat incredibly, even the newly-elected Hamas party maintained order, even protected churches in Gaza and Ramallah.)
I read about the Islamic radicals and violent fundamentalists every day, but strangely when I talk and interact with Muslims on a regular basis, my own reality stands in stark contrast to what's being reported. If it bleeds it reads, I guess. Or maybe there is a concerted effort to portray all Muslims as belligerent hotheads...
This poster says it all:
It's considered a crime to draw Mohammed at all. But is it a crime to BLOW PEOPLE THE FUCK UP?
What an irrelevant religion.
The 5ive Pillars of Islam
1. Blowing up anyone who isn't Muslim is OK.
2. Undermine women and make them second class citizens.
3. Drawing Mohmammed is a crime.
4. Women are filthy.
5. Any disagreements with any of these will mean an insult to Allah and will lead to #1, no exceptions.
[10] Posted by: Papercutninja | February 8, 2006 01:31 PM
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
there should be mirrors up. the transition from being able to show his face to removing it (as well as competing screeds from christian artists doing their own agit-prop) is rather interesting.
there's a definite values gap here. both the pope and some folks in the middle east have asked for a similarly impossible situation of "free speech - except when it comes to criticizing/mocking/hurting the religious." i find that gag a bit hard to swallow from folks who regularly speak of the decadent west / culture of death that allows homosexuals to run free, et al.
it's sorta kinda almost a bit remindy of the satanic verses thing, though there's a lot less bile from western sources directed towards the danes.
The only cartoon that gets me up in arms is the Family Circus. I hate those little bastards...
"Nola" you have been confused by my comment. I DESPISE communism. It's not surprising that you were confused, as you seem to be a Christian who believes in magical ghosts and goblins.
People who believe in Jesus AND Muhammad are just as loony as those who believe in the Tooth Fairy..... All are equally fictional.
I'm sorry I threatened your beliefs in such a harsh way. And I'll firmly stand by your side to make sure you have the right to believe......that babies come from storks, broken mirrors cause bad luck, and that Bigfoot is real. It's cute. Like a child who believes in Santa Claus.....
Keep on praying, kid. May God/Jesus/Allah/Satan/Joe/whoever strike me down if I'm lying.
Tim N, I agree with you.
I have heard a few, a very few, and very softly read (or printed in small print), articles about Muslim clerics and Muslim citizens of various countries, denounce the violence as more damaging than the cartoons. But, I guess a good old fashioned riot, with lots of blood spilled, effigies burned, cars overturned, buildings damaged, and foreigners scared witless, is better press than people disagreeing in a civilized fashion with the riot idiots. Although I wish the civilized disagreers would start yelling, and maybe have a few 100,000 person marches of their own, on an embassy or whatever.
I've heard Muslims, as one previous poster said, say, "its just a cartoon." Other Muslims have told me, basically, that although its not thier way to make any kind of image of Allah or Muhammed, they can't stop anyone else from doing so. All they can do, is point out the reason why Islam doesn't do this (the risk of worshipping an idol), and if that doesn't get more than a shrug, well, we live in a country that has freedom of speech and thought and the press (well, on paper we do, anyway), and that there is a separation of religion and state (ditto) here. They have the freedom to not make an icon of Muhammed, Russian Orthodox have the freedom to make an icon of St Nicholas.
Agreed. It would be one thing if the Danes drew cartoons in Muslim countries, but the Danes drew those cartoons within Denmark. Those darn Danes!
Anti-Theism - Your gratuitous insults disguised as commentary do more to injure your case than I ever could. People like you are very amusing - you enjoy all the benefits that our society bestows and claim to reject it at the same time. Nice try. The fact is you would not want to live in a society that wasn't shaped by Judeo-Christian traditions. But go ahead and spout your nonsense. We Christians are very tolerant and not at all threatened by kiddies who want to shock the grownups.
We Christians are very tolerant [...]
And I'm the one spouting nonsense, right?
Trust me, I know I'm not going to change your mind. I have the right to not believe, just as you have the right to believe. I am not shocking any deity, as he/it isn't there to feel any shock.
You don't see non-believers revoking people's rights, taking over women's bodies or causing holy wars.
THAT's a hell of a lot more shocking than whatever myself or other non-believers yap our gums about.
Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler were a couple of non-believers who revoked a few people's rights. Their wars may not have been "holy" wars, but they did more harm than any religious fanatics ever did.
It is also foolish to lump all believers into the same category when it is just one religion whose followers are advocating violence.
Wow, am I actually finding myself slightly agreeing with nola?! Maybe there IS a... never mind.
I'd be lying if I said I knew for sure there was anything out there like a divine presence, but I gotta tell you, much as I love and admire the atheists and they certainly make a good case, puh-leeeeese don't give me this "religion is the root of all evil" bullsh!t. Nola is correct when he/she refutes that tired old canard about "non-believers" never oppressing any other group of people, and the examples cited are just a paltry few. (Mao, anyone?)
Also, please get over yourself, you are not a "non believer," you are as firm in your belief that a higher power doesn't exist as others are that it does. And it's not "shocking" to any of us, like any belief system that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. (Of course you will fuss and fume that it's not an "opinion," it's a fact and then you will appear as pedantic, self-righteous and UNPROVEN as the most obnoxious televangelist).
Anyway, I like the fact that there are more than one belief system/ religion/whatever tha f--- you want to call it in the world. Some of the greatest works of art, liteature, poetry (not to mention heavy metal music LOL) were inspired by That In Which You Are Too Smart To Believe in. I can't imagine living in a world without it.
You may be logical, you may be even be right. But you're boring as hell. (Oh, sorry, you don't believe in that.)
Here's a list of some other "boring" people:
http://www.celebatheists.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page
I'd hardly call Jodie Foster stupid, Björk untalented, or Douglas Adams boring.
Mark Twain had also been one of the most memorable critics of religion in modern history.
One interesting person on the list is Darren Aronofsky, who wrote the film "Pi." The film is about a Jew who discovers the secret name of god within a number. But how could that be? You say atheists can't possibly write about religion, right?
Contrary to popular belief, atheists aren't afraid of religion. They just don't believe in it as fact. Religion is definitely interesting, and makes for excellent writing material.
My main point, and I admit I was being an insensitive asshole (I love being an asshole, by the way), was that throughout history, people kill and maim over the honor of their deity. Even though we live in modern times, we're still at the caveman mentality, fighting over whose volcano god is beter than whose volcano god.
How many people died over these Danish cartoons? A dozen? And for what? What a waste.
I wouldn't call Jodie Foster, Bjork or Douglas Adams boring, either. (BTW, whoever said "stupid" or "untalented?" sounds like you have some unresolved issues from your own past, mate.)
I wouldn't call Howard Stern boring, either. I called YOU boring.
The difference between these folks and you, my dear friend, is that they embrace their own truths and leave it at that. They don't feel it necessary to jump on some message board about violent fundamentalists and spout their contempt for other peoples' beliefs, using the actions of said fundamentalists as their sole basis for what I consider a very weak arguement.
(Except for Stern, who likes to trash other peoples' beliefs but is so f'in hilarious in doing so that you just gotta love him and his outrageousness. He also NEVER tries to adopt a stance of superiority, as you have -- at least not seriously. You, my friend, are no Howard Stern.)
Also, criticism of religion does not amount to atheism per se. Movies like "Dogma," "The Last Temptation of Christ," and books like "The Satanic Verses" are the first (and finest) examples that spring to my mind.
And, if you sneeringly refer to anyone who does consider the possibility of a higher power as making "a feeble attempt at understanding your existence" "loony" and believing in "ghosts and goblins," you are only asking to be flamed, and shouldn't be surprised when it comes backat ya. You will also be reminded that such ignoramuses as Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Ghandi, and Albert Einstein all endorsed the concept of a spiritual power, and certainly in the case of the first two, used it to motivate them in their causes.
Lastly, I suspect that if those cavemen you talk about had had enough food in their bellies, a warm fire and plenty of territory, they would give a rat's ass about whose volcano god is better.
Glad that we can agree at least that religion is interesting, and makes for good art. Whether you believe the Catholic Church or not, one thing you must grant them is that they have one hell... er, heck of an imagination. ;)