I was quoted in USA TODAY the other day in a Peter Johnson column about the Danish cartoons. As often happens, I heard from readers by e-mail, some of them raising energetic challenges to my point of view. I do my best to respond to as many of these notes as possible.
Here's my quote as it appeared in USA TODAY: "This is one of those case(s) where there can be multiple, justifiable ethical right answers. In the post-9/11 era, these matters take on a whole different level of urgency. The ethical decisions editors and broadcast executives face are tougher than ever."
I was quoted accurately, and have no complaint with Peter Johnson's reporting from our conversation.
But not surprisingly, some of the readers I heard from by e-mail have a different take on the cartoon issue than I do. Here's some of what I wrote to one of my e-mail correspondents:
"I’m generally a strong “green light” journalist and ethicist, believing as you do that it’s the job of newspapers and other news organizations to give the public more information, not less, on important matters.
"My thoughts earlier this week were very similar to yours. I felt journalists needed to make sure the public could see this image in order to best understand the debate. While I think that’s still a reasonable position to take, I’m increasingly of the mind that the harm that can come from republishing the image may outweigh the benefits. It’s not a matter, at this point, of further offending Muslims, though that will likely happen to some degree when we republish. (And, I do believe we have an obligation to understand the fundamental opposition that most Muslims have to the use of any visual images of the Prophet Muhammad, not just their strong reaction to this particular image). I’m willing to accept that some will be offended, and indeed journalists often do offend people and groups.
"The greater problem is the widespread furor and violence that in many cases is putting innocent people at great physical risk. I believe we have to factor that reality into our decision-making, both journalistically and ethically. We have an obligation to both consider our duty — informing the public — and the consequences of our actions. We must seriously balance the value of continual republication of a visual image in the name of informing the public against the value of defusing (or at least not potentially inflaming) a very dangerous situation.
"That’s why I see this case as a tough call, a really tough call. I can support those news organizations that thoughtfully and professionally determine it’s justifiable to use the image for the right reasons. I also can support those news organizations that thoughtfully and purposefully decide NOT to use the image for the right reasons. That said, I think there are some “wrong” reasons that I couldn’t support — using the image strictly for competitive reasons; using the image because we are angry at the violence and want to emphasize our point by showing the image; using the image without considerable thought and weighing of the duty/consequences factors; etc.
"Finally, I don’t see this as a matter of censorship. I see it as the legitimate news judgment and ethical decision-making that takes place every day in newsrooms across the country and around the world. Editors (and other news organization leaders) make these journalistic judgments all the time on what is published/broadcast/posted online and what isn’t."
