Siegel: "Press" Owner Was Afraid
The newspapers who haven't published those controversial Danish cartoons typically cite appropriateness and editorial judgement. Only a few, notably the Boston Phoenix, have added the obvious: Fear of violent retaliation is a consideration -- and not, as John Podhoretz notes, an illegitmate one, as long as you're honest about it.
New York Press, unpolished, ramshackle place that it is, proved a pretty transparent labrotory for how this happens. The publisher's statment was the usual boilerplate: "We came to the same conclusion as many other responsible newspapers and media outlets that have chosen to not run the Danish cartoons. We felt the images were not critical for the editorial content to have merit, would not hinder our readers from making an informed opinion and only served to further fan the flame of a volatile situation."But, says former editor-in-chief Harry Siegel, that's not what he was told.
"The owner of the paper [David Unger] was talking to me about his fear that things would get blown up," he said today. "This was expressed to us directly: 'I'm not putting lives in danger. We're not getting things blown up.'"
Harry (full disclosure: he's a former colleague, and current neighbor) said he's been shocked at how this story has unrolled in the American media.
"I honestly thought on Friday that 70% of the newspapers in America would run the cartoons by Monday," he said.
"There's this whole attitude that we can't upset the armed barbarian children who will react to cartoons this way," he said, arguing that it's an insult to moderate Muslims. "New Yorkers of all people should know about rent-a-mobs."
Can you blame a business owner for having a concern for his property and/or the people he has working for him? What about the potential losses in revenue from his advertisers? Is there no line between the right to having a free voice and the tollerance to have respect for others in your voice? I'm sure all three of those questions were considered by your owner.
I agree with New York Press. Readers of the alt press are usually intelligent enough to understand a viewpoint if the editorial is presented correctly. If your story couldn't hold the muster without images that many in this world find to be offensive, then it obviously wasn't fit for print. Instead of fixing the real issue, you chose to walk away which serves no purpose except your own, which isn't as the voice of the people.
Who hasn't seen the images anyway?
Long live the free press and its responsibility to its people!
Media Bubble: One Day, Rupert Murdoch Will Own Us All
• News Corporation made a billion dollars of profit last quarter. [MW] • Why the New York Press REALLY wouldn't...
Long live the free taibbi
I agree with the NYPress decision not to publish the cartoons but for a different reason. To do so would be assuming that all people hold western values such as freedom of the press as more important than religious beliefs. It is the same as George W. assuming that all cultures will embrace democracy.
Dave: I second that. Plain and straight!
I do hold freedom of speech as being more important than 'fear of offending someone's religious belief'.
Dave J's comment is nonsensical.
B. Davis, you are right; business owners need to protect their businesses and their employees.
So the owners/managers of the NY Press should find new careers, because if you are publishing a newspaper, magazine, books, whatever, you are without a doubt involved in producing something that insults or offends somebody.
When it's an alt publication like the Press, it's a slam dunk. If the fact is that pissing off certain people scares the bejeezus out of you, while offending others is considered a safe bet, admit it: You'll shove the milquetoast in the chest, but hand your lunch money over when the bully gives you a hard look.
In a word: coward.
All they had to do was not put it on the front cover. Put a zillion warnings (ie: READ AT OWN RISK). Then, after the tense, nervous build-up, the reader will knowingly turn the page by his own will, and then react with a resounding, "Uh, so THAT'S all??!"
So going forward, it's okay for NY papers to offend Christians, Jews, gays, conservatives, etc., basically anyone civilized who won't resort to violence as a response. But it's not okay to offend the uncivilized and the savage, since they might take up arms against you.
Funny, but I always thought that it was the savages that *most* need satirization...
"New Yorkers of all people should know about rent-a-mobs."
What's he mean by that?
The US liberal media’s sudden flash of “religious sensitive
I second TC's comment. If you are afraid of offending or insulting people, inciting controversy, or pissing off the occasional advertiser, or (every once in a while) having angry mobs at your doorstep, running an alternative newspaper, especially one with the history of the NY Press, is not for you.
If you can't stand the heat...
Backgammon games Super :)
online texas holdem Sorry :)
I live at 63326 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?
Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.