Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Cartoonish State of the Media

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted February 4, 2006.


Banning cartoons in France? Rumsfeld propagandizing our own citizens? World media gone mad.
Advertisement

When it comes to matters of free speech and sound journalism, it's getting increasingly difficult to determine who is worse: the present rulers of the United States or the Islamo-fascists they're now at war with. When they're not busy attacking one another, each side in the current conflict keeps busy attacking journalists (more already dead in Iraq than in the entire Vietnam era), journalism and the very concept of freedom of the press.

In the midst of the ongoing controversy over cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, and the pusillanimous reaction by scared outlets such as CNN and France Soir (of which more later), it was particularly sad to see U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lobbing yet another round of verbal grenades at the media last week.

Claiming that press criticism has made "our people … chilled and reticent and uncomfortable," Rumsfeld resurrected the silly, shopworn shibboleth that the media will be to blame if the United States "loses" the global war on terrorism.

"We're not going to lose wars or battles out there. The only place we can lose is if the country loses its will," Rumsfeld said. "And the determinant of that is what is played in the media."

The terrorists, Rumsfeld noted, "manipulate and manage to influence what the media carries throughout the world. And they do it very successfully. They're good at it."

Meanwhile, U.S. military personnel "get penalized because there's bad press, there's bad news, someone doesn't like it, there's a congressional hearing, the newspaper has it on the front page because it's about the media, and the media likes to write about the media," Rumsfeld said. "How do we compete in this struggle in a way that can counter the ability of the enemy to lie, which we can't do, [and] the ability of the enemy to not have a free media criticizing them? You don't see much criticizing of them."

Rummy spoke just a few days after a Freedom of Information Act request by the redoubtable National Security Archive, a research institution based at George Washington University, compelled the release of the previously secret "Information Operations road map" he signed in 2003.

The newly declassified 74-page document details the U.S. military's plans for "information dominance" -- from influencing public opinion through media to designing "computer network attack" weapons -- and notes that information is "critical to military success." The "road map" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare.

The document was written to set out policy guidelines and establish the Pentagon's rationale for making information operations a "core" mission for the U.S. military. It says, "Information, always important in warfare, is now critical to military success and will only become more so in the foreseeable future."

The operations described in the document include a range of military activities, the most disturbing of which is the acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or psyops, is finding its way to the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.

"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads. "Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public."

The document's authors agree that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda, and say, "Specific boundaries should be established," but don't bother to explain how.

But the National Security Archive calls this 'psyops' what it really is: propaganda planted overseas that will inevitably make its way back to the United States. "In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States -- even though they were directed abroad," said Kristin Adair, a representative of the group.


Digg!

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Scary Stuff
Posted by: navistic50 on Feb 4, 2006 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A great article. It just re-inforces my own knowledge and beliefs about the current administration. Free Speech is a must in a democratic society. What concerns me is where will these problems take us?

» RE: Scary Stuff Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Cute Kittens Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Cute Kittens Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Cute Kittens Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Cute Kittens Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Cute Kittens Posted by: appelpie
» RE: Scary Stuff Posted by: rkhan
» RE: Scary Stuff Posted by: m92tiger
» RE: Scary Stuff Posted by: redjenny
Bow down.
Posted by: kittynboi on Feb 4, 2006 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want to bow down to you. I want to fucking worship you. With all the whining and spinelessness over this mohammed drawing issue, I can't tell you how happy I am to see Alternet come down on the side of free speech.

I keep seeing even self described conservatives, who supposedly hate islamic militants, supporting muslims and begin politically correct.

I think this, and the recet condemnations of a WaPo editorial cartoon by the pentagon, are helping show who is REALLY on the side of free speech and who supports it only when it is safe.

» RE: Bow down. Posted by: amatullah
» RE: Bow down. Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Bow down. Posted by: jbetterl
» RE: Bow down. Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Bow down. Posted by: jbetterl
» RE: Bow down. Posted by: kittynboi
» Oops. Left out important word. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Bow down. Posted by: Gma1
» RE: Bow down. Posted by: nptexas
» RE: Bow down. Posted by: outsidea
» RE: Bow down. Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Bow down to leper messiah Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Bow down to leper messiah Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Bow down to leper messiah Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Bow down to leper messiah Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Bow down to leper messiah Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Bow down to leper messiah Posted by: kittynboi
» Links Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Bow down. Posted by: nptexas
What the hell is up with Rumsfeld?
Posted by: Rolomax on Feb 4, 2006 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With corporate conglomerate ownership of the media, what are we to expect?

It seems like a game to me.. The white house needs the media to play into their hands, and that is what is happening.

A real journalist takes risks with no guarantee of reward. Is there such a thing anymore? Or are they not allowed to report?

When are we going to hear some of the things at Alternet in the mainstream media? Some of these things seem mighty important.

As for Rumsfeld, maybe he's just trumpeting so that the media will hear. Perhaps he wants them to line up behind the white house. Maybe he's afraid that average citizens will make the connection that "losing our will" makes the same sense as "going to war for a lie."

'U.S. military personnel "get penalized because there's bad press"', says Rummy. Why does he suppose that is? Something tells me that the prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Graib didn't get themselves press coverage on purpose..

Speaking of war.. The US never declared war. So, is it a "police action" ? Why does the press call it war when it isn't?

Maybe it is PsyOps getting back to the US media.

Liberal Nonsense
Posted by: Jasem on Feb 4, 2006 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally I found your liberal comments disgusting and outrageouse and testament to peoples addiction to moral self righteousness over plain common courtesy. Two days after Martin Luther King's wife dies, if I posted a pictire of MLK as a monkey, and posted it in any magazine you would have a field day I'm sure. How dare you say that depicting a creed in such a racist manner is acceptable and hide behind your rights to offend. You are a sick and twisted neo liberal who is heartless and has no decency. I could say MLK like most Jesus freaks don't beleive in darwinism and get away with my ethnic slur. WOULD YOU DEFEND ME THEN?? WELL WILL YOU, YOU PHONEY FAKEY, OFFENSIVE LIBER-SHITHEAD!

» RE: Liberal Nonsense Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Liberal Nonsense Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Liberal Nonsense Posted by: brad
» RE: Liberal Nonsense Posted by: earthmom11
» RE: PSYOP! Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Psychopomp Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Hate Speech Posted by: kittynboi
» Supreme Court ruling Posted by: brunowe
» Whoa... Posted by: Allison
Funk Off!
Posted by: Ottomatic on Feb 4, 2006 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We own the country.
We own the media.
&
We:
Stole it All!
From you!

Funk Off!

Funk Off!
Poor Whitey

Funk Off!
Poor Black Man!

Funk Off!
Poor Immigrant

Funk Off!
Poor Jew

To the:
Baby Boomers!
That
Bought:
Junk Schlock!

Funk Off

It’s:
Mickey Dees
For you!

There is only:
Two Classes!
The Rich!
And
The Richer!

Billionaires-R-US.

Poison!
Pollution!

War!
Poverty!
&
Prison!

Is:
For you.

Some free country.

We get away with murder
While saying:
We are only doing it!
All for you!

Load up your SUV’s
And
Head off to the Mall.
Make a day of it!

Blood & Guts
And
Family Violence for All!

As Iraqis pave:
The Highways
Along the way!

Smile and Wave!
At them:
For doing it!
The AmeriKo way!

Chinese Junks Ships are laden
With:
Glass Beads!
For All!

They just bought:
Manhattan!

Placebos!
and
Pacifiers!
On call!

Are you happy yet?
Living in a Reptilian:
Night Mare?

Things are getting better!
Things are looking up!
We are turning a corner!
Pay as you fill up.

Bushzarro:
AmeriKKKo!

Where:
Up is:
Down
&
Lies are:
Truth!

Stop complaining!
Be Happy!

We’re off to the Shore!

Talking about reality
Is
Such-A-Bore!

Kenny Boy!
Got Laid!
In
The Lincoln Bedroom.
But,
Who?
Got Funked?

» RE: Funk Off! Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» RE: Funk Off! Posted by: douglashoyt
» RE: Funk Off! Posted by: m92tiger
» RE: Funk Off! Posted by: redjenny
SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE
Posted by: Lulu Gee on Feb 4, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder what would happen in this country if the New York Times were to front-page a cartoon depicting Jesus Christ panting after a naked woman in a shopping mall captioned with something like "I want to dwell in you for all eternity".
Whether or not one is Christian or religious, this cartoon would be seen as a provocation to the Chiristians--right-wing or mainstream. Also it would be giving militant Christians what they want--evidence of their persecution.
If such a cartoon were published here, some would defend it on free speech grounds. But I would be wondering why the New York Times did not, for instance, show some courage by breaking the Bush-Snoop story in a more timely fashion (like when the paper first learned of this afront to our rights before the election).
The point is that there are many ways a newspaper can give offense, shielded by our constitution, but is this the best we can now expect of our press; leaving real and meaningful acts of courageous journalism to be studied as artifacts of a golden age?
If you want to call it courageous to give offense to a despised and powerless population (European Muslims), I think you are asking too little of the press and I don't understand the gleeful almost triumphant waving of the banner of free speech as if we have long stiffled our contempt for Islam and are at last free to give it open expression. Hallelujah, Bravo aren't we big and brave! LuLu Gee

» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: amatullah
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: brunowe
» RE: You are uninformed! Posted by: The Butcher
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: amatullah
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: outsidea
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: Lulu Gee
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: owleyes
» RE: SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE Posted by: bansidh@citlink.net
» Intolerance works both ways Posted by: boing007
Retired Ray
Posted by: RayK on Feb 4, 2006 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Mr. Rumsfeld will agree that freedom of speech is a sacred right that must be preserved at all costs for those who support the government.

» RE: Retired Ray Posted by: kww355
terrorism and freedom of the press
Posted by: vgraef on Feb 4, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rumsfeld is a terrorist by his own definition.

I disagree
Posted by: JoshuaHolland on Feb 4, 2006 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It troubles me that Rory kept saying "Islamofascists" and Muslim fundamentalists, when the plain fact of the matter is that those cartoons infuriated even the most moderate, well-assimilated (hate that word, sorry) Muslims. It's simply not accurate to attribute the anger we see to the radical minority.

I also believe that the issue of press freedom in this case is a red herring. It is not at all contradictory to hold that the Danish press had the right to publish what they wanted, and at the same time condemn their stupidity and biggotry in choosing to print these slurs. They should be roundly condemned for lacking the most minimal level of sensistivity to Muslim culture, even as we affirm their right to do so. It's not a fine point of "political correctness" here, those cartoons portrayed Islam's holiest profit as a bomb-wielding maniac -- they were way over the top and the reaction to them was wholly predictable.

» I disagree with both of you. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: I disagree with both of you. Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: I disagree with both of you. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: I disagree with both of you. Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: I disagree with both of you. Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: I disagree with both of you. Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» Thanks for your perspective. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: I disagree Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Pigs and Monkeys Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: Pigs and Monkeys Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: I disagree Posted by: brunowe
» a little context ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: A lotta context ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: A lotta context ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: A lotta context ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: A lotta context ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: A lotta context ... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: A lotta context ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: A lotta context ... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: A lotta context ... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: A lotta context ... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: A lotta context ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: A lotta context ... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: a little context ... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: a little context ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: a little context ... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: a little context ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: a little context ... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: a little context ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: a little context ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: a little context ... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: a little context ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: a little context ... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: I disagree Posted by: douglashoyt
» RE: I disagree Posted by: YogiBear
» Finally, some sanity Posted by: Qwerty
» RE: Finally, some sanity Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: I disagree Posted by: redjenny
AND NOW WE DON'T EVEN HAVE C-SPAN!
Posted by: krose on Feb 4, 2006 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THEY HAVE CAVED IN TO ADMINISTRATION RIGHT-WING DEMANDS, and have denied us our last bastion of TV media coverage. They apparently decided late on Friday afternoon, NOT TO BROADCAST SATURDAY'S "WORLD CAN'T WAIT" WASHINGTON D.C. "BUSH STEP DOWN" DEMONSTRATION (11 AM).
This, in combination with the recent FAIR.org study which concluded the overwhelming bias toward Right-Wing, white, male guests on C-CPAN's morning Washington Journal program, demonstrates that all of our cable networks, including the one we believed the least partisan of all, are unavailable to those opposed to our current government. THIS IS FRIGHTENING, AND IT SHOWS HOW DEEP INTO THIS FASCISM THING WE HAVE FALLEN! WE ARE ALREADY IN IT, NOT ON THE EDGE OF IT!

TAKE ACTION: CALL AND E-MAIL C-SPAN:
VIEWER SERVICES: 765-464-3080
WASHINGTON JOURNAL (OTHERS) 7AM-10AM 202-628-0205
events@c-span.org
viewer@c-span.org

Cartoonists
Posted by: benzene on Feb 4, 2006 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a collge campus cartoonist, I must say that I admire the effective use and combination of these symbols. In such a complacent world, I think that the true measure of any cartoon's worth can be determined by how many people it pisses off. Resultingly, hate mail overjoys me, as it means that my cartoons actually got through to somebody. And I admit that I'm jealous, not just because of the syndication, but also because of the shitstorm.

paling comparion

» RE: Cartoonists Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Cartoonists Posted by: gs15
» RE: Cartoonists Posted by: kittynboi
» EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by: Prophit
» RE: Cartoonists Posted by: owleyes
Oddly Enough...
Posted by: CanuckKid on Feb 4, 2006 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I find myself aggreeing with Jack Straw on this one. The papers who chose not to run the offensive cartoon made that choice willingly, and IMO, chose wisely - no need to ratchet up an already-tense situation just for the sake of "informing people". I for one am content to be uninformed - I'm happier not having seen a caraciture of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban. Consider it a different interpretation of "Freedom of the Press", the authors of which, surely, never intended it to be used as a convenient excuse for intentionally pissing people off, did they?

» RE: Oddly Enough... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Oddly Enough... Posted by: IanA
» RE: Oddly Enough... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Oddly Enough... Posted by: krose
» RE: Oddly Enough... Posted by: andyDee
» RE: Oddly Enough... Posted by: CanuckKid
» RE: Oddly Enough... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Oddly Enough... Posted by: redjenny
This is the Satanic Verses all over again
Posted by: demidesigrrl on Feb 4, 2006 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember the Satanic verses-Salman Rushdie-fatwa affair very well and did some research on it. As somebody who has a Muslim background, but who is a non-practising, secularized, Western woman, I really wanted to understand the outrage on both sides, and the implications for free speech, cross-cultural dialogue, etc.. What I found out when I researched the Rushdie affair was that initially the quiet protests of Muslims in England, letters to the editor of the Times, etc., were ignored, or denigrated: people who had lived in England for ages were told to "go home" if they didn't like Rushdie's views. The affair then escalated until it was whipped up by the mullahs and finally by the Ayatollah, and then everybody in the West got worked up into a righteous fervour. Then, as now, there were ugly, bigoted undertones to this self-righteousness, and a refusal to recognize the sweeping generalizations and the nasty stereotypes of Muslims in the name of the shining principle of free speech. I do not like the violence in these protests, and I do uphold free speech. However, I am also asking people to understand what is being said and done in the name of free speech, and to think about it before they add fuel to the fire, just as we understand here on Alternet what is being said and done in the name of "democracy and freedom". Two things that will help the understanding, even if you don't support the fundie POV (which I don't): the culture "over there" is very different in terms of how it regards holy books and sacred images. Another thing that should be understood is the context: Muslim people are simply fed up of the constant barrage of hatred, racial stereotyping, and bombs from the West. I don't support what they are doing, but I am saddened to see that the media here is exulting in the opportunity to portray upset, fed-up people as savages and yet another ominous sea of brown faces and chants that we don't bother to translate.

suggestion re cartoons
Posted by: jareilly on Feb 4, 2006 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A mental exercise for any Muslims offended by the (admittedly stupid or at least dreary) Danish cartoons. Has a cartoon ever:

1. Bombed your house?
2. Gotten you fired from your job?
3. Taken food from the mouths of your children?
4. Stolen your MP3 player?
5. Vandalized your mosque?

No? I didn't think so. Consider this then. The cartoons, however offensive, do not cause you any measurable harm. They are words and images. If you are calling for violent action against the cartoonists and publishers, you are confusing words (and images) and actions. You are also confusing thoughts and actions. The confusion of thought and action is the core principle of all forms totalitarianism and absolutism. It is why there are "thought crimes", "heresy", "apostasy" and fatwahs against authors in all totalitarian societies. It is also evidence of the failure to mature beyond the concrete thinking of childhood.

Finally, consider this: If your response to the cartoons is to parade around the streets with signs reading "Butcher the enemies of Islam", as some of you did yesterday (photos in today's paper) then you prove nothing except that the cartoonist was right.

» RE: suggestion re cartoons Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Piss Christ Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: suggestion re cartoons Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: suggestion re cartoons Posted by: brunowe
» ALL speech free? Posted by: Qwerty
Well, I can see from your "priorities" why we are in such deep doodoo!
Posted by: Prophit on Feb 4, 2006 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If your representative of those in the military who would argue ad nauseum over a stupid s on the end of a word, rather than look at the big picture, then the rest of us should be frightened to death and not of the arabs but you guys who wouldn't question an order to shoot your fellow Americans cause you wouldn't look at the implications of such an order.

You simply would assume he should be shot for not understanding and correctly getting a military term right! Oh, my gosh, what have we done by having a volunteer army???? I think we really screwed up on that one. It attracts these guys.

RE: PSYOP
Posted by: amatullah on Feb 4, 2006 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amusing that this prissy spelling harangue comes from the same person who misspelled "teetotaler" wrong in his earlier post (see the piss Jesus/piss Qu'ran exchange, re: seen from another angle).

» RE: PSYOP Posted by: amatullah
RE: PSYOP
Posted by: kittynboi on Feb 4, 2006 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just to be clear, I'm a lib who hates the military.

I know you're supporting me in other areas, but don't go assuming I'm some kind of right winger.

» RE: PSYOP Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: PSYOP Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: PSYOP Posted by: YogiBear
RE:actually...
Posted by: The Butcher on Feb 4, 2006 8:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PsyOp is not an acronym.
Radar is, USA is....
Kind of compound word really
So before you teach grammar...
I don't like snobs anyway.

Ye another way of looking at this.
Posted by: kittynboi on Feb 4, 2006 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what someone in another conversation about this elsewhere said.

"" It's necessary that people (especially intolerant groupthink types) be exposed to (shockedface) People and ideas who disagree with them!""

I think thats a part of this discussion that we're losing amongst all the shouting and the hate I keep injecting whenever I can. Another thing at the heart is just that; whether or not people should be exposed to idea and people who disagree with them, shock them, or challenge their beliefs.

» RE: Since the day you were born Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Since the day you were born Posted by: kittynboi
Crusade?
Posted by: stopthebushies on Feb 4, 2006 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prior to the invasion of Iraq gw bush used the word crusade on at least one or more occasions. The policies of this administration have not eased tensions in the Islamic world since then. I would think that Rumsfeld et.al. would want to distance them-self's from this cartoon controversy, but oh no they want to blame the media, go figure. After all they have been telling the PEOPLE that they should watch what they say for a while now. There you have it so much for freedom of speech, especially when most of the media are lap dogs of bush & Co. and as they say "freedom is not free" and since they bought their way into the white house maybe they think they own it.

Will this cartoon (inside) cause a Christian riot?
Posted by: launcher on Feb 4, 2006 5:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a link to an article concerning a cartoon published a few years ago in the Palestinian daily, Al Quds: lgf article

A Muslim Iraqi and Palestinian being crucified. Quite blasphemous to a Christian. But I doubt there were calls to kill the cartoonist. The point it, cartoons like this one and the recent Danish variety appear every day in print in the free world (regardless of taste). The humiliated / angered / insulted target of the cartoon just accepts his opponent's expression of free speech and moves on, knowing he will soon have a turn to spit back.

Offensiveness
Posted by: sln70 on Feb 4, 2006 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can't live in a sterile world. I have found many a joke to be offensive in my lifetime, particularly those which denigrate women. Jeez, I find a lot of commercials repellant and bad for children in terms of stereotyping.

BUT.. we cannot live in a sterile world. There is no such thing. Offense will be always be taken to whichever forms and subjects of expression human beings use to express their observations of their environment.

Indeed, there is no accounting for taste. But there should never be rioting, arson, or killing as a result of art.

Ridiculous.

» RE: Offensiveness Posted by: philame
» RE: Offensiveness Posted by: anothername
» RE: Offensiveness Posted by: sln70
» RE: Offensiveness Posted by: boing007
free speech is one thing but freedom demands responsibility.
Posted by: nebgirl on Feb 4, 2006 5:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
free speech is one thing but requires people to act in a responsible manner. To understand why it is upsetting for Muslims, try to picture the N. Y. Times publishing a racist cartoon attacking Jews. African Americans or Christianity. What would be the reaction be? There would be a firestorm of protest and calls to fire the perpetrators. So while it is legal to publish such cartoons, only racist newspapers would ever do so. Those who published cartoons insulting the Islamic faith are racist and should be fired. let them find a job with their local nazi or skin head organizations.

» EXACTLY Posted by: sln70
» EXACTLY!!!!! Posted by: m92tiger
Remember the Good Old Days
Posted by: anothername on Feb 4, 2006 6:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was a lot easier for Alexander Hamilton to be heard when he owned the New York Post. Ben Franklin was able to share his wisdom through his own Almanac. Thomas Paine printed his own pamphlets (if I remember my history lessons correctly). I do not believe William Randolph Hearst was as wildly successful in his own political endeavors when he started his own newspaper. Hearst may not have put his life and property on the line in propaganda against an unresponsive government, but Hamilton, Franklin, and Paine may very well have risked everything. Of course, in Revolutionary America Philadelphia was the big metropolis, with all of 40,000 people.

I don't know the names of the publishers of the Loyalist publications, or what they wrote. Were they as castigated by Americans for their support of a government as newspapers today seem to be?

logos
Posted by: logos on Feb 5, 2006 12:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe Rumsfeld should consider making a deal with the Muslim States: We will ban all offensive references to Muslims if your newspapers ban offensive references to Jews. After all, Jews have feelings and a culture. I know, that can't be done. BUT these forms of expression are part of our values, OUR CONSTITUTION SAYS SO; IT IS THE LAW OF OUR LAND. We understand that Muslims are offended, but we are more tolerant of offensiveness than we are of murder and arson. I personally am offended by writers and speakers who don't recognize that media are plural and take a plural predicate adjective. Oh yes, and that words ending in "S" and are plural take apostrophe S e.g. Charles's hat, and NOT Charles' hat.Do you care that I am offended at lousy punctuation and grammar? I would guess not.

logos
Posted by: logos on Feb 5, 2006 12:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe Rumsfeld should consider making a deal with the Muslim States: We will ban all offensive references to Muslims if your newspapers ban offensive references to Jews. After all, Jews have feelings and a culture. I know, that can't be done. BUT these forms of expression are part of our values, OUR CONSTITUTION SAYS SO; IT IS THE LAW OF OUR LAND. We understand that Muslims are offended, but we are more tolerant of offensiveness than we are of murder and arson. I personally am offended by writers and speakers who don't recognize that media are plural and take a plural predicate adjective. Oh yes, and that words ending in "S" and are plural take apostrophe S e.g. Charles's hat, and NOT Charles' hat.Do you care that I am offended at lousy punctuation and grammar? I would guess not.

george233
Posted by: george233 on Feb 5, 2006 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding offending the muslim religion and its recent spate of horrific events perhaps they should take a leaf out of the christian faith and have a good laugh at Monty Pythons Life of Brian. I cannot recall any of the christian faith going on a rampage against he film. Keep smiling as life is too short.

» RE: george233 Posted by: sln70
» RE: george233 Posted by: boing007
» RE: george233 Posted by: sln70
» RE: george233 Posted by: brunowe
hate speech and responsible journalism
Posted by: madaha on Feb 5, 2006 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The initial publishing of the cartoon in Denmark was wrong. Yes, it's protected as free speech, but it is racist hate speech, and the editors should have known better than to encourage such attitudes. HOWEVER! The subsequent publishing of these images is merely responsible journalism, which is supposed to fully inform the public of the issues of the debate. Sure, some will be offended, but that's the point of informing people that there are racists out there. We SHOULD be offended. And we SHOULD learn all we can about it. Not publishing them now just keeps us one step removed from full awareness of the issues. It is offensive to me to see images of people blown up in war, for example, but we all still need have those images available, so that we stay educated. We need to get serious here, not just publish them to be in a tit-for-tat west vs east false dichotomy. It is not about free speech vs Islam.

missing the context
Posted by: ceti on Feb 5, 2006 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is perfect example of why liberals can be so boneheaded and unreliable allies, as Martin Luther King realized long ago.

What we are seeing now go beyond just the issue of freedom of speech (which doesn't really exist in a world where the freedom of speech belongs to who owns it).

Denmark is getting roasted because the current right-wing pro-war government came to power on an anti-immigrant platform like many other European governments that have sided with the US.

The right-wing paper in question chose to provoke. It ignored entrities to tread lightly, self-righteously proclaiming its right to publish anything it wanted in the name of free speech, but really with a far more sinister political agenda. The republication further added fuel to the fire of a restive population that has long been simmering with resentment against their own disenfranchisement and marginalization.

» RE: missing the context Posted by: sln70
» RE: missing the context Posted by: philame
» EXCELLENT POST Posted by: m92tiger
» RE: XCELLENT POST Posted by: kittynboi
A Liberal Muslim View Of Sharia (Islamic Law) And Political Islam
Posted by: thirdmg on Feb 5, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From a liberal Muslim viewpoint, a well-written article explaining the dangers of Sharia and political Islam:

Why Sharia Law Must Be Opposed

"The only possible response to the charge of misunderstanding or misreading Islam is to look at the reality of what is happening in those countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and northern Nigeria where the Sharia now holds sway."

» Sharia is evil. Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Sharia is evil. Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Sharia is evil. Posted by: kittynboi