Cartoons ought to be printed

On Feb. 8, The New York Times published an editorial explaining its choice to not run the offensive cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. The Times claimed that this was the reasonable decision for "news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."

Then in the arts section of same issue the Times reprinted artist Chris Ofili's Holy Virgin Mary -- a painting of the Virgin Mary made from elephant dung, that offended many Christians after its unveiling at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 1999.

There seems to be a double standard here.

I do not mean to suggest that the Times should offend everyone equally, if it should offend anyone at all. Rather, at the bottom of this discrepancy lies the fact that every newspaper has an obligation to inform its readers about controversial topics such as the Muhammad cartoons, and to not do so selectively, as the Times has done.

Therefore, following the example of The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Times and other papers nationwide ought to have reprinted the cartoons -- readers have a right to view and form their own judgments about them, regardless of whether some find them offensive.

Why do newspapers fear reprinting these cartoons? After all, shouldn't it be as simple as reprinting the Holy Virgin Mary?

Well, not exactly.

Opponents cite violence abroad as a safety concern. No one wants New York, for example, to become the next Paris as uncontrollable mobs rampage through the city for days on end.

Then there's the jihad. The United States already has a terrible image problem in the Muslim world, and this would only make it harder for us to win the "hearts and minds" that we so desperately need in order to fight terrorism.

Furthermore, these cartoons are just plain offensive -- especially in light of the fact that the Koran explicitly forbids depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

But none of these issues should concern newspapers.

It's a sad day when America's flagship newspaper and others base their editorial decisions on fear of violence rather than what best informs their readers.

Besides, in a country where angry readers write letters to their editors rather than torch embassies, I highly doubt that New York would become the next Paris.

And, in all honesty, since when does the Times really care about offending anyone?

On the contrary, the cartoons should be used to teach the Muslim world about freedom of the press.

Regardless of whether the Koran forbids depictions of Mohammed, readers have a right to view such depictions when they are causing international headlines. And self-respecting newspapers everywhere -- from the U.S. to Turkey and beyond --- have an obligation to inform their readers with this content.

So why haven't they done so? Fear is truly the right word. But cowardice may work even better.

Consider the tale of two collegiate publications: The Triangle of Drexel University and the Daily Illini of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The staff of The Triangle had planned to run the cartoons. But after receiving some thinly veiled threats, eventually they decided to err on the side of caution. Still, even if they backed down due to fear and pressure from the public, at least they realized -- unlike the Times' staff -- that their readers had a right to view this content.

At Urbana-Champaign, Chuck Prochaska, the opinions page editor, and Acton Gorton, the editor-in-chief, have been suspended for reprinting the cartoons, allegedly because they did not consult others within the paper about their decision to print them.

"We did it just to inform our readers, not as a publicity stunt," Prochaska said. "If it is making news, people have a right to look at it and judge it."

This is exactly why, last November, The Daily Pennsylvanian published the picture of a couple having sex in a window of Hamilton College House. The photo was the story: No reader could possibly get a full understanding of the issues involved without actually seeing the photograph.

Similarly, there's more to the cartoon controversy than just the violent reaction. But you won't see that part of the story in print.

Hence it's all the more disappointing that the Times has lacked the courage to stand up for the principle of informing the public and that it did so in such an unabashedly selective manner. At the same time I take great comfort in the fact that collegiate publications have had the courage to carry on when the Times has cowered away.

So if Gorton and Prochaska are not reinstated, I'm sure The New York Times could use their help.

Cezary Podkul is a junior philosophy major from Franklin Park, Ill. Return of the Salad appears on Tuesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.