Buying the Rioters Standards

Here's the problem with the position taken by the press (and apparently by the State Department) on the cartoons. The position taken by the rioters is that there is no such thing as a benign image of the Prophet, that any image is as offensive as any other image. Therefore any cartoon is the equivalent, essentially, of an anti-Semitic cartoon. But the wrong impression is being given by the word "cartoon," particularly since the only one ever described is the one with the bomb in the turban. Most of them are not political cartoons, or, as has been suggested, "caricatures." In fact, most of them are simply drawings, artistic renderings as drawn by cartoonists, in the sense of animators.

By continually writing and speaking as if the publication of any and all of the cartoons should have been equally offensive, we accept the standards of the rioters -- which means we allow them to dictate their standards to us.

Surely we want our press to have some standards regarding the publication of offensive material.

But whose standards do we want those to be? Particularly when we reach the point where those standards have to measured against newsworthiness, against the American press' responsibility to inform us, which they continually tell us on other issues -- say, national security -- is a heavy burden?

Update: Well, finally a mainstream publication examines the story that additional publications, besides those published in Denmark were shown around the Middle East, but they don't seem interested in digging very hard.

Update: The Post, by the way, besides three articles today, is planning two online Q&As. Talk about dancing in the dark: how exactly do they anticipate their readers to have informed or intelligent questions if they haven't seen the cartoons yet?

Update: Compare the Post's story, which reports that it has been reported that cartoons that weren't published in Denmark were circulated, notes that the Danish imams deny they did that, and leaves it at that, with this very, very in-depth story on how the cartoons went global, the first story of its kind I've seen. (via Instapundit.)

Comments

[roger rainey]

Major newspapers had always prized themselves as courageous in the face of power. In fact, that is largely what their modern ethos is built around. All this came crumbling down this week when each of them in serial fashion trotted out weak and insipid reasons for failing to publish the cartoons and take a clear stance. Just like protesters who will walk around with a poster of a beheaded GWB but would not go near an Islamic idol, so too are our major papers. They are never fearful of taking on our own government because they know there is no real reprisal, but when their crystal palaces could be threatened by a real mob, they cower in the corner. That's one more pillar of support for the MSM as we know it rudely yanked away.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Aren't they tacitly acknowledging that that their readers on the web will have seen the cartoons by now anyway?

Which is to say, aren't they tacitly acknowledging their own obsolescence?

[Ron Hardin]

The story line is that the Muslims are offended, therefore there has been an offense, which is better believed if the offense isn't seen.

The women's connection, which drives everything via audience demographics, is that they're like two year olds.

I'd say there's an actual insult there, in not taking Islam seriously. (``Look how like two year olds they are.'')

An actual story would show the cartoons, get a statement from hotheads, get a statement from others.