Those cartoons

There are been some very interesting conversations going on about those editorial cartoons printed in the European newspapers, originating in Denmark.  In my opinion a lot of them are surprisingly intolerant of religion, but very religious about the press.  Frankly, I have issues with this solemn idea of the "free press" and forcing that idea down people's throats.

Presses are owned and operated by people with business interests first and spreading the "news" second.  And, in so doing, they decide what is news and how to to think about what is news (notice I didn't say what to think--it's not brainwashing, more like framing).  Which is probably why (if you're like me) you want to throw things at the TV--they don't frame issues the same way you do.  And newsmaking is an overtly political act (even if journalists don't see it that way).  They set an agenda and depending on their power and credibility (ie Fox News vs Walter Cronkite) people engage with it.  Sure they're free to say what they want--they own the damned press.

The problem for me is that when the press reports on itself, journalistic ideas about freedom of speech take precedence and other frames are not investigated because the media doesn't like to be very critical of itself.  What would have been a more useful story would be to talk about how a free press is non-existent in many of these protesting nations which would uncover the environment many of these people live in and the tyranny of totalitarian religious states.  The European press enjoys great liberties and should be fighting to help enshrine that elsewhere instead of helping to fuel religious extremism by asserting their rights to say what they please (which they already know they can do since they do it every day).

I am not condoning the violence, but I think the newspapers that reprinted this also have no respect for the religious beliefs of another group.  If they had printed something the so-called mainstream found offensive, we may not have been out in the street burning things down, but there would have been some sort of protest, subscriptions would have been cancelled and there would be apologies and so-forth.  I think what the newspapers did was overtly political and shows incredible bias against Muslims. And it serves to reignite tensions that are in the undercurrent of European countries which have a developing but still tenuous acceptance of immigrants from non-Western European countries.

Those who are protesting aren't helping either, but I think the point this blogger made about railing at governments in totalitarian regimes is very logical and sad.  These people are also being played big time by their leaders--they're allowed to protest in this way when the "government" lets them and it serves to increase their fervor toward their own way of life and against the "others". 

Though in some ways it is not that different from what the "free press" in Europe is doing with their readers.  Except that outrage is talked about in coffeeshops and at the newsstand instead of in the streets.  In both cases people are encouraged to look at the "other" in a bad way and it doesn't serve any purpose except to increase those tensions.

The way I look at it, one is more nuanced than the other.  Likely because those doing the violent protesting don't make it on the news unless they do something violent or brash since it falls right into the media's perceptions of Muslims and gives them the "if it bleeds it leads" front page story.  See those crazy religious zealots--they're at it again. And I really feel like the press is playing all of us in a way by making us see it as an "us vs them" issue when there are probably people in our communities who wish this whole thing would end so they don't have to endure more intolerance than they already do in their daily lives.

Really, both sides need to shut the fuck up and let regular Danes and Muslims do what they want to do which is live their lives and be happy.

Comments

[Virginia]

Thank you. I think that the "free press" was irresponsible.

[M-H]

I agree, Steph. I am dosappointed at the hypocrisy of the Western media over this.

[janine]

I agree. I find it very worring that the world seems to be polarising along fundamentalist lines on both sides of the religious divide. I seem to remember, back in the 70's reading an adventure comic which was set in the near future during a third world war which was fought between religions. At the time I thought it was far fetched but now you have to wonder.

[beadslut]

Nicely said. Fueling the fire sells papers/commercial time/what have you.

I miss Walter Cronkite.

[Beth]

Insightful analysis. Those newspapers are managing to create sensational news they can then report. As your analysis suggests, business interests are more likely to influence what they print. Faith in the marketplace and its associated "freedoms" may be a bigger threat.

[Sarahfish]

Amen. Er, so to speak... I'll link to your entry from my Blog, since I believe that we could do with a more tempered voice in the matter. I personally feel that the term "free press" has been used to condone intolerance, bigotry, racism and myriad other "isms", much to the detriment of understanding, both domestic and international, and dare I say it, peace on earth. I know, sounds far fetched, but hey. It all starts somewhere, right?

Thanks for the post.

[anmiryam]

We need to plan on a few drinks and a good discussion of this and other issues at MDS&W. It'll stretch my brain.

[jen]

Steph, I came by the way of Witty Knitter, and agree whole heartedly with your entry.
But there is one bit that doesn't sit easy.
"Presses are owned and operated by people with business interests first and spreading the "news" second. And, in so doing, they decide what is news and how to to think about what is news"
That is true about many news corporations, but people should be aware that there are newspapers, in particular countries, that have editorial freedoms.
In my 15 years on a metro daily in Australia, I have never been told to slant a piece in a particular way, or not to write a certain piece because of 'advertising interests' or the possibility of upsetting a particular interest or community group. This freedom is at the core of the journalist code of ethics and one which we hold dear and will, and have, fought for.
We fight to be able to report corruption, to uncover and expose greed and to use stories to force change for the better.
But in saying this we are also bound to be culturally sympathetic, I would never publish the name a deceased Aboriginal, nor publish a photograph as that is a cultural no-no unless the family have given express permission.
This is why I'm shaking my head at these cartoonist. They completely ignored the cultural religious guidelines in publishing an image of this nature. There is a strong message they were trying to get out, but it could have been done without any breaking cultural taboos. These cartoons were a cheap shot, and could have been done much better, with a bit more thought.

[Beauty and the Beltway]

Thanks for linking to my blog in this post, I had deleted the post, but it's back up now. Thanks again.

[Julia in KW]

Very well-thought-out discussion and I agree whole-heartedly with you...and also Jen's comments. I even read your post out to my other half...which provoked a healthy discussion here...thanks.

[Mairin]

I agree whole-heartedly with you. I was listening to Cross Country Checkup on Sunday and a woman who phoned in said it really well. She said that it seems to be o.k. for the media to dehumanize the Muslim world. This,she surmised, allowed countries like the US and the UK to commit atrocities against these people. They are human, as are we. They deserve the same respect any Christian or Jew would expect. I don't blame them for being angry. Maybe this cartoon was the straw that broke the camel's back. That newspaper should issue an apology and fast. We should all expect that in this day in age.

[Funkie]

Hello admin, nice site you have!