View Cartoon Controversy. Michael Smerconish, radio talk show host, and author of the book "Muzzled", and Hussein Ibish from the Foundation of Arab-Americans in Washington D.C., discuss the controversy surrounding some cartoons which several newspapers would not print for fear of offending those in the Muslim community. Smerconish sees a double standard, where Muslims get a "free pass" from caricature or satire in our media, unlike other religious groups. Ibish says it was not political correctness, but mere editorial taste and judgment that made these papers refrain from printing the cartoons in question. Should media ethics make newspapers and other media outlets more concerned with permitting the satire of all groups equally, in support of freedom of speech? Or should them be more concerned that they do not publish material that would be offensive to the public? As a writing project, research online some of the cartoons that were banned by these papers, (they are still online at http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2007/08/26/opus/). Then research online some cartoons which satirized the prophet Mohammed that were printed in Denmark in recent years. (The publication of these cartoons incited violent protests in that country.) Which, if any of these cartoons do you think should have been banned? Describe your rationale for why or why not such action should be taken.
Cartoon Controversy (38258.0K)