The second installment of Cartoon Wars has struck! This time it’s a cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker depicting Presidential candidate Barack Obama in Muslim clothes and his wife as a terrorist. Obama’s campaign has labeled the cartoons as “tasteless and offensive”. John McCain said the cover was "totally inappropriate and frankly I understand if Senator Obama and his supporters would find it offensive".
The furore over The New Yorker’s cartoon reminds us of the controversy surrounding the publication of those Danish cartoons several years ago of the Muslim prophet Muhammed. The Danish cartoons showed the prophet Muhammed with a turban hiding a bomb on his head, giving the impression that he was a suicide bomber. The publication and re-publication of this cartoon led to death threats on the cartoonists life, international condemnation and diplomatic action against Denmark.
The governments of Pakistan and Turkey condemned the publication of the satirical drawings of the prophet Muhammed, while in Europe states were divided in their approach. Jack Straw, the UK foreign secretary, denounced the decision to republish the cartoons, saying that press freedom carried an obligation not “to be gratuitously inflammatory”. Mr Straw affirmed that he believed in freedom of the press but stated, ‘I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been insulting, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong”. He went on to praise the British press for their decision not to reprint the offending cartoons, which demonstrated their “considerable responsibility and sensitivity”. But the German home minister, Wolfgang Schauble, sought to defend the decision of four German newspapers to reprint the cartoons by claiming that their republication was “an expression of press freedom”.
Professional Cartoonist Daryl Cagle explains:
‘Cartoons can be outrageous in their exaggeration; we draw things that never happened, and never could happen -- but we have a contract with the readers who understand that we’re drawing crazy things that convey our own views. The New Yorker’s Obama cover fails to keep that contract with readers. Cartoonists don’t exaggerate anything just because we have the freedom to do so; we exaggerate to communicate in a way that our readers understand.’
Cagle believes that The New Yorker’s cartoon is somewhat flawed but that it could have been fixed with a minor alteration:
‘There is no frame of reference in The New Yorker’s cover to put the scene into perspective. Following the rules of political cartoons, I could fix it. I would have Obama think in a thought balloon, “I must be in the nightmare of some conservative.” With that, the scene is shown to be in the mind of someone the cartoonist disagrees with and we have defined the target of the cartoon as crazy conservatives with their crazy dreams.’
Cartoons will often be inflammatory to certain individuals or groups. It is important to ensure that they do not go too far by creating hatred for particular individuals, groups, races or religions. Malicious attacks must not be tolerated. However, both freedom of speech and the press are fundamental principles of our society. What we must ensure is balance. But, perhaps the most important thing is for those who are offended to develop a greater resistance to finding offence. The greatest double standard that can exist is not being able to laugh at oneself.
3 comments:
The question is one of freedom of expression, the islamic world appareantly has the right to call the western worls infidel and defame us as much as they want yet we show a cartoon and they go nuts. Is the idea of mohammed so fragile that it could be destroyed by a cartoon. Similarly the Newyorker cartoon however tasteless it may be is an opinion and should not be banned or censored.
I think the question is perhaps more of respect. If those in the Islamic world are willing and begin to respect figures of significant importance to others than they should find the same respect. I don't believe they are afraid that the idea of Muhammad is so fragile. That they are forbidden to reproduce images of him does not prevent others from doing so. It is not though a very sensible thing to do if one is searching for dialogue, understanding or cooperation. Doing so will only serve to increase friction. But I agree that if Muslims want to be respected then they also will have to show respect.
In terms of The New Yorker cartoon, it was an opinion poorly expressed. Everyone takes from images something different according to their own perception and pre-existing bias. That the cartoon had no qualifier in it meant that the cartoonists intention was not ultimately clear to all involved. This does not mean it should of course be censored but better use of the cartoonists tools should be employed for the next attempt.
People should be allowed to print whatever they want within reason. I agree that things should not be printed just to cause offence and we have laws that are there to protect individuals. There are limits on press freedom already. I think the Obama cartoon could have been explained better.
Post a Comment