Questions, comments or suggested links? Contact me at: rhanson40@gmail.com Mass Communication: Living in a Media World, a new text for Introduction to Mass Communication classes.

Tuesday - February 28, 2006

Everyone's Gone To The Movies Dept. - Where To Go For Oscar News
Here's a round up of Oscar news pages along with links to a few selected stories.

• USA Today's Oscar Page
  • When Oscar Stood Tall
    Mike Clark looks at Oscar contenders that have stood up for groups outside the mainstream. Includes clips
• Washington Post's Oscar Page
  • WP Critics Make Their Predictions, Give Their Picks
    Including an explanation of why they think Capote will win over Brokeback Mountain.
    
• CNN's Oscar Page
  • Sidney Lumet Discusses Network 30 Years Later
    OK, so it lost to Rocky for best picture. The Academy had a bunch of idiots as voters! It still won best actor for Peter Finch, best actress for Faye Dunaway, best supporting actress for Beatrice Straight, and best original screenplay to Paddy Chayefsky. Still the best movie ever about television. "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
    
    Link Me

Monday - February 27, 2006

• Everyone's Gone To The Movies Dept.
  There's been so much serious news to talk about as of late that I haven't had a chance to do a single entry on the movies all through Oscar season. Unless something really big happens, we're going to the movies this week.
  • Why are Brokeback Mountain and March of the Penguins the Two Most Impressive Box Office Performances of 2005?
    According to Box Office Mojo, the promotion, distribution, and content of these two very different movies brought people out to see offbeat (gay cowboys and penguins!) movies that were relatively inexpensive to make and that no one thought would be particularly successful. For the record, Brokeback cost about $14 million and has brought in $73 million so far. Penguins cost $1 million for the US distribution rights to the French documentary, and it brought in $77 mil. But what delights me about the two films more than anything else is that they absolutely defy all the ideologues on what is wrong with the movies today. A fascinating look at the 10 movies that had the most impact on the box office in 2005. They aren't necessarily the biggest, though some are; they aren't necessarily the best, though some are; but they did make a difference when it came to the box office. Must read.
  • Why Munich Won't Let Go Of Me
    Munich, Steven Spielberg's revenge story about the 1972 Olympic massacre, was not my favorite movie of 2005, but it is the one that has stuck with me the most. I think the reason it has done so is because it deals with the cost of vengeance - not so much in terms of money, though it is expensive - but on the soul.
    
    Eric Bana plays an Israeli intelligence agent name Avener who realizes that he gradually loses his humanity as he and his team hunt down and kill the members of Black September who planned and implemented the massacre.
    
    What makes the movie so disturbing is how we see Avener as both a caring husband and a killer. The film is unusual in that it is a Spielberg film with two memorable sex scenes - one with an innocent Avener making happy love to his pregnant wife; the other is a desperate Avener seeking (and not finding) peace in his wife's bed while images of the massacre are intercut with their coupling. The link above is to a blog entry by Jim Emerson on Roger Ebert's web site that deals with the controversy surrounding this deeply disturbing scene.
    
    But do yourself a favor and watch this movie. See for yourself what all the fuss is about. Just don't expect to leave the theater with any level of comfort.
    
    Link Me

Thursday - February 23, 2006

• When PR Meets the News Business
  My ethics students are working on term paper proposals right now where they are supposed to be looking at the connections between advertisng or public relations and the news or content side of the media business. Here's a couple of recent items that would seem to fit within the topic:
  • How do DC Flacks Control the News?
    Interesting story from The Hill about how Capital Hill flacks go about shaping the news. Do you suppose that reporters depend too much on PR folks for the news? (Certainly a good thing for the PR people...) Thanks to Romenesko for the link.
  • Where Do White House Photos Come From?
    When we see photos in magazines and newspapers of events at the White House, if we think about them at all, we probably assume that they come from one of the dozens of photographers who follow the president and vice president around. But according to Susan Walsh, president of the White House News Photographers Association, the administration is increasingly keeping photographers at a distance and instead feeding news organizations with official "hand out" photos. A great discussion of the issue from NPR's On The Media. This is the second story OTM has done on the issue of handout photos recently. The first was back in November and dealt with the Associated Press carrying hand out photos from the Pentagon over the wire. OTM provides as an example this photo that ran in the Detroit News. (Look at the credit line.)
    
    Thanks to DC Fishbowl for reminding me of the story I listened to on my iPod earlier in the week. They also have reminders of several recent pay-for-play examples from the feds.
    
    BTW, if you aren't listening to the OTM podcast every week, you just aren't keeping up on your media news.
    
    Link Me
    
    
• Is Search News? Dept. - The Price of Doing Business in China
  Over the last couple of years we've taken an occasional look at the question as to whether search capability is a news medium. To be sure, Google has Google News, but what about search in general? This is a significant question because various governments around the world want to put limits on Internet searching. And the companies such as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google all seem willing to build limits into their portals as part of the price of doing business in countries with more restrictions on free speech than the United States. (Which is virtually every country...) Sometimes it is relatively noncontroversial, such as France's attempt to make Yahoo filter out all references to Nazi paraphernalia.
  
  But over the last few weeks, the collaboration of search companies with the Chinese government has started to raise big questions in the United States. For example, according to a report from Fortune magazine, Yahoo gave up the name of blogger Zhao Jing to the Chinese government after the government there said the company must do so. Yahoo defended its actions by saying that it had to comply with local law.
  
  This case has received national prominence is the US this week as Zhao was featured in one of a series of stories about the issues confronting the Chinese press in the Internet era. The series is called The Great Firewall of China, and it looks at censorship of a state-run young people's paper, the Chinese version of Wikipedia, and the above-linked story on bloggers. (The series, which was to run three days, has actually been extended a fourth day with Wednesday's article on Chinese media criticizing Google for not cooperating sufficiently with the Chinese government.) NPR's On The Media also had an excellent story on the censorship of the China Youth Daily.
  
  Google, well known for its informal company motto of "Don't be evil," has been on the receiving end of criticism for cooperating with the Chinese government in censoring the Internet through its google.cn site. Congress's Human Rights Committee has held hearings where Google and its competitors testified about their business practices in China. (You can view the hearings on C-SPAN; you will need to page through till you get to House Hearing on Internet in China, Part 1 and Part 2.) You can also read testimony from Committee to Protect Journalists executive director Ann Cooper on the responsibility of US Internet companies operating in China.
  
  BTW, one of the most interesting commentaries I've seen about Google in China comes from Colin W. Sullivan, a columnist at University of Nebraska's Daily Nebraskan, who actually compared search results from the Chinese and English versions of Google rather than just taking the word of pontificators.
  
  Link Me

Wednesday - February 22, 2006

• I Don't Know If It Serves Any Great Purpose But It Sure Looks Cool Dept. - Commentary As Art
  Urlyart.com has a fascinating bit of interactive art on the Dick Cheney shooting. It's a photomosaic of web pages (mostly) covering the Cheney shooting creating an image of Dick Cheney hunting. It then provides links back to the original web sites. Very cool. (Thanks to Wonkette for the link.)
  
  Link Me

Tuesday - February 21, 2006

• Links for my Ethics Students
  Here's a few links I promised for my ethics students.
  • Images From Fallujah
    Links from 2004 to images from the Battle of Fallujah
  • Standards for Digital Photo Editing
    An article from Poynter on the Charlotte Observer's digital photo editing standards.
  • Handling Offensive Images
    Ractions from Poynter on deciding whether to run the most offensive of the Abu Ghraib images.
  • Editing Images of Spanish Bombing From 2004
  • USA Today on the Jack Kelley Scandal

Friday - February 17, 2006

• Searching for a Miracle: Media Coverage of the Sago Mine Disaster Panel to Air On C-SPAN Saturday
  As I mentioned earlier, the P.I. Reed School of Journalism had a panel Monday on media coverage of the Sago Mine Disaster. This panel will be broadcast Saturday on C-SPAN at 9 p.m. and again at midnight eastern time.
  
  Our panelists dealt with some difficult issues and had to face questions from former coal miners, a daughter of a mine safety inspector, and a doctoral student in mine safety. I've pasted the text of the press release about the broadcast below.
  
  As the editor/author of the slide show that opened the program, I'm admittedly biased, but I think the program went really well. My intro to mass comm students (280 of them at 8:30 in the morning) spent quite a bit of time talking about it at the start of class Tuesday.
  
  BTW, I would like to publicly thank Randy Jessee of the Richmond Times-Dispatch for creating the original comprehensive slide show of Sago front pages from which our slides were drawn.
  
  Here's an excerpt from the WVU press release:
  
  C-SPAN to broadcast WVU Sago Mine disaster media panel
  discussion Saturday
  
  CONTACT:
  Julie Cryser, School of Journalism 304-293-3505, ext. 5403
  
  C-SPAN will broadcast “Searching for a Miracle: Media Coverage of the Sago Mine Disaster” Festival of Ideas panel coordinated by the West Virginia University Perley Isaac Reed School of Journalism Saturday, Feb. 18, at 9 p.m. and midnight.
  
  C-SPAN taped the panel for broadcast. Viewers who missed the live panel discussion Feb. 13 can tune in to reporters from CNN, CBS , USA Today, the New York Daily News and the Charleston Gazette and listen to their examination of media coverage of the Sago Mine disaster that killed 12 miners. The panel was part of WVU's prestigious Festival of Ideas lecture series.
  
  Reporters and media experts discussed the challenges faced by journalists covering the story, the lessons they learned and the role that 24-hour news coverage may have played in one of the most controversial media accounts of the century.
  
  Panelists included CNN's Randi Kaye; CBS' Sharyn Alfonsi and Mike Solmsen; USA Today's Mark Memmott; the Charleston Gazette's Scott Finn; and the New York Daily News' Derek Rose. Kelly McBride, the Poynter Institute's ethics faculty member, moderated the panel.
  
  Link Me
  
  
• Kurtz Asks Real Questions About Cheney & the Press
  The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz looks at the massive amount of posturing going on over the Cheney shooting from the left and the right. There is a real story here folks, and no amount of partisan rhetoric is going to make it go away. Interestingly enough, not everyone in the press is pig-piling onto Cheney. The WP's Charles Krauthammer says that Cheney was wrong not to make an immediate announcement, but that his mistake was perfectly understandable. But, of course, no one's going to pay much attention to this measured response.
  
  BTW, there is also a great PR case study going on. Just as Bill Clinton could have solved Zippergate with a well-timed honest apology to his wife and the American people, so could have Dick Cheney stopped the endless speculation by an immediate announcement about the shooting. The window of opportunity for PR crisis management is constantly shrinking. It might have been a matter of a day or two 20 years ago, but it has shrunk to a matter of hours now in the era of the 24-hour news cycle.
  • UPDATES: More From Kurtz on Media & Cheney
    
    Link Me

Thursday - February 16, 2006

• Questions Worth Asking - Cheney's Got A Gun Edition
  There's been way too much serious stuff here as of late. It's time for some snarky items...
  • What Would Elmer Fudd Say About The Cheney Shooting
    Nothing is quite so fun as a New York tabloid cover, especially when the NY Post poses VP Cheney as Elmer Fudd. Of course, in proper Post style, it lampoons the vice president's critics. Almost as good as the WEASELS cover from a few years back. (NY Observer's Media Mob)
  • Why Did Cheney Give His Shooting Interview to Fox's Britt Hume?
    Because he hates press conferences? Because he can? Because the media were out to get him? Because the conspiracy nuts are correct and there's a big, bad, evil coverup going on??????
    
    Link Me
    
    
• Cartoons of Controversy Dept. Part IV
  • Go See What The Shouting Is All About: My Comments on the Cartoons from the Daily Mail
    My commentary from Wednesday's Charleston Daily Mail.
  • Daily Illini Editors Suspended For Printing Cartoons
    The editor in chief and opinions editor of the University of Illinois Daily Illini have been suspended for reprinting the controversial Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. (Chicago Tribune) NOTE: I've been trying today to get onto the DI web site, but it's refusing to load. Suppose it's that busy? I suspect so. UPDATE: I finally got onto the DI site; there's a story about an anti-hate demonstration.
    
    Link Me

Wednesday - February 15, 2006

• Questions Worth Asking (Maybe)
  
  • Do You Think The Sunday Talk Shows Feature Those In Power? Do Ya?
    FishbowlDC takes a good look at a study that at its heart shows that Herbert Gans was right -- the media are strongly biased towards covering those who are in positions of power.
  • Should Search Companies Do Business With Repressive Governments?
    Or do Google, Yahoo and Microsoft need to ignore the Chinese market. (You know the answer to this one, too.)
  • Does Advertising on a Healthy Kids Website Make Frosted Flakes Health Food?
    Kellogg's seems to think so... (BTW, go ahead and go to the trouble of getting yourself a free Media Post account. They've got some of the great trade newsletters out there!)
  • How Long Will TV Watching Be Done At A Standard Time and Place?
    Not long... Video iPods are just the beginning.
    
    Link Me

Monday - February 13, 2006

• Cartoons of Controversy Dept. Part III - To Print or Not To Print?
  The debate over the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad has changed over the last few days. The question now is not so much whether the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten should have commissioned and run the original cartoons. That's done and over with, and all the analysis in the world is still 20-20 hindsight. The big question is whether you reprint the cartoons for your readers. And it's not a question that most major newspapers or news magazines can avoid. The cartoons are obviously newsworthy, and they are just as obviously offensive and likely to provoke a violent response somewhere in the world.
  
  William Powers at The National Journal has a good column analyzing the debate as to whether to publish the cartoons. The question is not whether you can find the cartoons for yourself online. Of course you can (just look below). The question is what do you, as an editor, stand for. Powers says that it is not so much whether newspapers will publish the cartoons, but why. He writes:
  
  As I read the various explanations, I was struck by how sensible most of them were -- on both sides. Among those who didn't publish the cartoon, The Boston Globe offered one of the strongest retorts to those who argued that it was cowardly to withhold the images. "Newspapers," it said in an editorial, "ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Muhammad in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance."
  
  Yet when I saw The Austin-American Statesman's rationale for publishing the turban-bomb image, I was, frankly, just as impressed. That paper put the cartoon inside, with a front-page note informing readers where to go to "see an example of a drawing that offended Muslims and find out why it has."
  
  One thing that I find interesting is that commentators are able to move beyond simple red/blue rhetoric on the question of whether to publish. As Powers writes:
  
  [C]onservative blogger, Hugh Hewitt, urged his readers to "begin with the obvious: Some of the cartoons were offensive," while making this important distinction: "Defending the right to publish offensive material ... shouldn't mean having to defend the content published. And it certainly doesn't mean having to reproduce the material."
  
  (Thanks to Doug Fisher for the link to Powers' commentary.)
  
  As previously noted here, the Philadelphia Inquirer did reprint the most offensive of the images. Muslims in the Philadelphia area responded by picketing the paper, thus illustrating the common-sense idea that the proper response to offensive speech is more speech, not less. In fact, Inquirer editor Amanda Bennett told the protesters: "Neither I nor the newspaper meant any disrespect to their religion or their prophet. I told them I was actually really proud of them for exercising their right to freedom of speech." (On Sunday, the paper's Jonathan V. Last argued that papers declining to run the cartoons were making racist assumptions that Muslims would not be able to control themselves if they were confronted by the offensive images.
  
  The cartoons were also run in the University of Illinois student paper, the Daily Illini. Publishing of the cartoons has sparked debate about the issue to the campus and led to peaceful protests on campus. Even within the paper's staff, there has been debate as to how the decision was made to run the cartoons.
  
  But far more papers decided against running the cartoons.
  
  The Boston Globe, in an editorial, explained the paper's reasoning:
  
  This was a case of seeking a reason to exercise a freedom that had not been challenged. No government, political party, or corporate interest was trying to deny the paper its right to publish whatever it wanted. The original purpose of printing the cartoons -- some of which maliciously and stupidly identified Mohammed with terrorists, who could want nothing better than to be associated with the prophet -- was plainly to be provocative. Islam prohibits the depiction of Mohammed in any way, whether the image is benign or not.
  
  Other European papers reprinted the cartoons in a reflex of solidarity. Journalists in free societies have a healthy impulse to assert their hard-won right to insult powerful forces in society. Freedom of the press need not be weakened, however, when it is infused with restraint. This should not be restraint rooted in fear of angering a government, a political movement, or an advertiser. As with the current consensus against publishing racist or violence-inciting material, newspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance.
  
  Just as the demand from Muslim countries for European governments to punish papers that printed the cartoons shows a misunderstanding of free societies, publishing the cartoons reflects an obtuse refusal to accept the profound meaning for a billion Muslims of Islam's prohibition against any pictorial representation of the prophet. Depicting Mohammed wearing a turban in the form of a bomb with a sputtering fuse is no less hurtful to most Muslims than Nazi caricatures of Jews or Ku Klux Klan caricatures of blacks are to those victims of intolerance. That is why the Danish cartoons will not be reproduced on these pages.
  
  Numerous other papers also explained their decisions not to run the cartoons, including the Waco Tribune-Herald, New Jersey's Daily Record, and the Wisconsin State Journal.
  
  Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell explained her paper's decision not to run the cartoons. Len Downie, the paper's executive editor, said the decision was an issue of journalistic judgment, not courage:
  
  "This newspaper vigorously exercises its freedom of expression every day. In doing so, we have standards for accuracy, fairness and taste that our readers have come to expect from The Post. We decided that publishing these cartoons would violate our standards. This has not prevented us from reporting about them and the controversy in great detail in many stories over several days."
  
  Howell notes that the paper's stylebook says the following:
  
  "Defamatory or prejudicial words and phrases that perpetuate racial, religious or ethnic stereotypes are impermissible."
  
  This is not the first time the Post has declined to run cartoons it deems offensive. On at least two occasions, the Post withheld Aaron McGruder's strip Boondocks. Once for making fun of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dating habits and once for talking about an imaginary reality show "Give a N***** a Job." (You'll have to scroll down a ways in the link to find the mention.)
  
  Boondocks is not the only comic strip to get pulled on occasion. According to Editor & Publisher at least a dozen papers declined to run a Doonesbury strip last July that had President Bush calling his aid Karl Rove "turd blossom." (Reportedly turd blossom really is Bush's nickname for Rove. It is also Texas slang for a flower that grows out of a cow pie.) And in September of 2003, numerous papers ran a substitute strip in place of a Doonesbury that discussed masturbation as a way of preventing prostate cancer. Oddly enough, yet another Boondocks strip got pulled by many papers on the same day.
  
  So the decision not to run a cartoon on the basis of taste is not unique; and declining to run a cartoon is not necessarily done because it offends liberal sensibilities. (Note that all the examples above are from two of the most liberal comic strips available.)
  
  Being a blogger, I was able to take a safe middle ground approach - I posted links to the cartoons, but I didn't post the images themselves on my site. Accuse me of wussing out if you will, but at least I'm consistent. When the images of killings from Fallujah came out in April of 2004, I provided links to them rather than republishing them on my site. On the other hand, Daryl Cagle's fabulous editorial cartoon website and blog has the cartoons, and endless cartoons dealing with the controversy. He has also, through his newspaper column on cartooning, given a clear explanation of the issues from a cartoonist's point of view.
  
  Link Me
  

Friday - February 10, 2006

• Searching for a Miracle: Media Coverage of the Sago Mine Disaster
  A press release on a project I've helped plan for the last couple of weeks:
  
  West Virginia University's Festival of Ideas lecture series continues Monday (Feb. 13) with "Searching for a Miracle: Media Coverage of the Sago Mine Disaster."
  
  On January 2, 2006, an explosion in the Sago Mine in Tallmansville, West Virginia, trapped 13 miners and began a two-day rescue mission to find and save them. In one of the most controversial media accounts of the twenty-first century, newspapers, radio, and television reported just before midnight on January 3 that 12 of the 13 miners had survived when, in fact, only one had survived. During this panel discussion, journalists from CNN, CBS, USA Today, the Charleston Gazette, the New York Daily News and the Poynter Institute will discuss media coverage of the Sago Mine Disaster, the ethical implications of the crisis coverage, and the lessons learned. They will also discuss the role the 24-hour news cycle played in one of the biggest media faux pas of the century.
  
  The presentation begins at 7:30pm in the Mountainlair Ballrooms. This event is free and open to the public. Seating is limited on a first-come, first-served basis.
  
  This presentation is produced by the Perley Isaac Reed School of Journalism and WVU Arts & Entertainment. For more information, call 293-SHOW or visit http://www.events.wvu.edu/foi/
  
  Link Me
  

Wednesday - February 8, 2006

• Support Our Reporters Dept. IV
  • Part Woodruff Injury Coverage Sparks Debate on Kurtz Chat
    A particularly interesting online chat with Howard Kurtz that deals heavily with why Bob Woodruff was anchoring ABC's news from Iraq and whether Woodruff's injuries have received too much press attention. Also good discussion on the Danish cartoons, the Rumsfeld cartoon, and several other key press issues.
  • How CPJ Documents Attacks on Journalists
    Ann Cooper, the Committee to Protect Journalists' New York executive director, explains why the CPJ dead and injured count differs from those put forward by Eason Jordan. (International Herald Tribune, thanks to Romenesko for the link)
  • Jill Carroll Held Hostage for One Month
    Christian Science Monitor freelance reporter Jill Carroll has now been held by her captors for one month.
  • Chinese Newspaper Editor Dies From Police Beating
    The BBC reports that Chinese newspaper editor Wu Xianghu died last week as a result of injuries he suffered from a police beating in October. His paper had reported on corruption by Taizhou police.
    
    Link Me
    
    
• Why We Need Professional Journalism Dept. - Does Evolution Threaten Belief in a Loving God?
  Every once in awhile I try to run links to stories that have no connection to media issues other than that they constitute great journalism.
  
  Sunday's WP Magazine story on evolution and creation is one of those. The story doesn't try to address the scientific issues involved, but rather examines why the dispute between creation and evolution is so bitter, and what might be the philosophical implications of evolution being correct. Everyone should read this article regardless of their beliefs, just to understand the issues involved. Reporter Shankar Vedantam also had an online chat Monday to go with the story.
  
  Link Me
  

Tuesday - February 7, 2006

Cartoons of Controversy Dept. Part II

• Foreign and Domestic
  Along with all international furor over the Danish political cartoons portraying Muhammad, there has been a smaller scale fuss in the United States over a cartoon drawn by Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles. The cartoon (1/29) features a quadriplegic soldier (labeled U.S. Army) in a hospital bed with Dr. Rumsfeld saying, "I'm listing your condition as 'battle hardened.'" The controversy is based on whether the cartoon is disrespectful to American troops (certainly not by intent, perhaps just on general principle) or to Rumsfeld (beyond doubt). It is unquestionably an arresting and provocative image, as Toles' obviously intended.
  
  The Post received a rare letter signed by all of the Joints Chiefs of Staff expressing their outrage at the cartoon, and media reporter Howard Kurtz took an extended look at the issue in his column on Feb. 2. Perhaps more interesting are the letters to the editor that ran on Feb. 4. Whether the letters praise or condemn the cartoon, they all illustrate the importance of political cartoons in sparking public debate.
  
  Toles isn't the only artists to use a injured solider in a political cartoon - Mike Luckovich had one dealing with the press's fascination with Bob Woodruff's injuries run in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. But as Dave Astor points out in Editor & Publisher, no one from the Joint Chiefs has complained about it. Why? Luckovich tells Astor, "The onus was on the military in Tom Toles' cartoon," said Luckovich, citing one possible reason. "In my cartoon, the criticism was aimed at the mainstream media." Columnist Thomas Segel has argued that perhaps the press would feel different if it were Woodruff who was depicted in the cartoon. Take a look and decide for yourself.
• More on the Danish Cartoons
  • Daryl Cagle's Cartoon Web Log
    Cagle's site is always the first place to go for a wide ranging look at cartoons in the news. But in addition to the cartoon archives, Cagle also runs a daily blog cartoon news. It's not something I've followed closely in the past, but right now it's the place to go for comic-centric news. He also has a great archive of cartoons dealing with the Danish cartoons.
  • Poynter Faculty Debate the Caricature Controversy
    There is also a podcast of their discussion available here in both streaming and downloadable formats.
  • Muslims Picket The Inquirer
    The Philly Inquirer reprinted the most offensive of the Danish cartoons, with predictable results.
  • Cartoonists Respond to Muslim Outrage
    The San Francisco Chronicle runs interviews with several American cartoonists on their response to the Danish cartoons. Includes comments from Doonesbury's Garry Trudeau.
    
    Link Me

Monday - February 6, 2006

• Cartoons of Controversy Dept. Part I - Cartoon Portrayals of Muhammad Ignite International Conflict
  Over the last week or two there have been at least two major controversies surrounding political cartoons appearing in US and Danish newspapers. The link above is to a discussion of both cases by Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of the Washington Post , who looks at what the role of editorial cartoons in the western press.
  
  Today we take a look at the global controversy over Danish cartoons portraying the prophet Muhammad. Tomorrow we'll look at a Washington Post cartoon about Donald Rumsfeld that provoked a letter of complaint from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Along with Hiatt's commentary, the Post's Sunday Outlook section had a wicked cartoon outlining the issues surrounding both.
  
  So why is half the world infuriated over cartoons published in the conservative Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten? The answer is both simple and complex. Douglas Fisher, who blogs at Common Sense Journalism, provides a good summary of the controversy through an extended quote from the paper's editor in chief. He also provides links to the cartoons themselves, and a blog devoted to the controversy. At the heart of the controversy is the fact that Islam forbids images of Muhammad. According to an AP story, it is a sin for a Muslim to create such an image and the "ultimate sort of insult" for a non-Muslim.
  
  The Post's culture critic Philip Kennicott gives a compelling explanation of why the cartoons have been so controversial and why he believes that publishing them was a really bad idea:
  
  "They were created as a provocation -- Islam generally forbids the making of images of its highest prophet -- in a conservative newspaper, which wanted to make a point about freedom of speech in liberal, secular Western democracy. Depending on your point of view, it was a stick in the eye meant to provoke debate, or just a stick in the eye."
  
  He points out that we would be unlikely to see many cartoons quite that offensive by Christian standards in the US:
  
  "No serious American newspaper would commission images of Jesus that were solely designed to offend Christians. And if one did, the reaction would be swift and certain. Politicians would take to the floors of Congress and call down thunder on the malefactors. Some Christians would react with fury and boycotts and flaming e-mails that couldn't be printed in a family newspaper; others would react with sadness, prayer and earnest letters to the editor. There would be mayhem, though it is unlikely that semiautomatic weapons would be brandished in the streets. "
  
  The response to the cartoons has been massive: At least four people were killed Monday when Afghan troops fired on demonstrators; the cartoonists themselves have gone into hiding for fear of being killed; two Jordanian newspaper editors who reprinted the cartoons have been arrested; the cartoons have been banned in South Africa, with the editor who published them receiving death threats; protesters burned the Danish embassy in Beirut; and American commentators have written lengthy pieces on the controversy.
  
  Link Me

Friday - February 3, 2006

• Support Our Reporters Dept. Part III
  Journalists in Iraq Face Kidnapping & Murder
  Along with the risk of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and the general emotional and physical toll that covering news in a war zone takes, journalists in Iraq face a daily threat of being kidnapped if they try to go outside of the heavily fortified Green Zone. This week, two Iraqi journalists - Marwan Ghazal and Reem Zaeed of Samaria TV - were kidnapped while covering a political meeting. (The main link for this entry is to a Washington Post chat on the risks journalists are facing in Iraq.)
  
  According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), there were 14 journalists kidnapped in Iraq in 2005, and as of today (February 3, 2005) there have been a total of 39 journalists kidnapped since the war began.
  
  Among American journalists, the most recent kidnapping involves Christian Science Monitor freelance reporter Jill Carroll, who was taken on January 7th, along with Allan Enwiyah, her interpreter. While Carroll is being held hostage, Enwiyah was murdered and left in the street. The CPJ has a news and information page about Carroll's status, as does the Monitor. Support for Carroll is not limited to Western papers; according the Monitor, The Jordan TImes has run two editorials calling for the kidnappers to release Carroll, who has written for the JT in the past.
  
  Arab satellite news service al-Jazeera ran a video of Carroll on Monday that showed her crying, the accompanying report said that her abductors were calling on the U.S. and Iraqi governments to release all female prisoners. MarketWatch media columnist Jon Friedman raises the question as to whether the media ought to stop airing video released by terrorists. He writes:
  
  "Maybe it's time we refused to air a tape and, in effect, quit pandering (if unwittingly) to the terrorists. Perhaps Americans living and working in danger zones around the world would be better off from now on. "
  
  I'm not sure I buy his argument, but it is provocative.
  
  Link Me