Cartoon Madness

This Danish cartoon controversy is simply fascinating.  The Brussels Journal has been the "go-to" blog on the story since it broke last fall, but Michelle Malkin, God bless her, has been working overtime to ensure that the story gets the attention it deserves.  For her comprehensive round-up, see here.  Christopher Hitchens and Mark Steyn have provided some of the best commentary. 

Although the story is riveting on a number of levels, I am particularly struck by the ongoing reaction of the media. Initially, I was flabbergasted (but not surprised) that the MSM was ignoring a story that had been newsworthy for months.  I was also not surprised when, once the story could no longer be ignored, the MSM, almost without exception (as summarized by Ms. Malkin) reported the story without publishing the pictures at the center of controversy.  Never mind that the MSM has never encountered an affront to a western moral value or religious sensibility that it didn’t feel obliged to defend.  In this instance, because defending the freedom of expression would have required the MSM to be on the same side as western civilization, it opted to sit this one out.

Although the MSM no longer has the power to surprise or shock me, I remain strangely disappointed by its apparent indifference to this remarkable story.  The American press is in a much better position to defend the cartoons than its European counterpart and is, likewise, a much more appropriate champion of the freedom of expression.  This controversy has been widely reported as being the result of 12 hateful and gratuitous “caricatures of Mohammed” published in a Danish newspaper.  In fact, the cartoons were intended as a commentary on the fact that many artists, writers, journalists and politicians are afraid to criticize Islam because they fear for their lives .  Thus, most of the cartoons address the disturbing relationship between Islam, not unreasonably represented by Mohammed, and violence. It’s hard to imagine a better example of the non-trivial and serious political speech that deserves protection in every society.  To the extent that general principle isn’t sufficiently inspiring, one might have thought that American journalists, from the relative safety of America, would feel an obligation to speak for those who might be afraid to speak for themselves.      

Moreover, and as discussed in this post at Brussels Journal, freedom of expression in many European nations is qualified by hate speech laws that tend to undermine the argument that the cartoons are protected speech.    Thus, offended Muslims have legitimately pointed out that, because these laws play favorites, the “freedom to offend” extends to some groups but not others.  By identifying and affirming actual freedom of expression, and highlighting the relative absence of such hate speech laws in America, the MSM could have made a beneficial contribution to the debate. For more about hate speech laws in the context of this story, check out the The Volokh Conspiracy.

An even more disappointing aspect of the cartoon controversy is that it is yet another example of the MSM’s reluctance to report any event that involves Muslims behaving badly (as seen here (thanks to Little Green Footballs) but not by many Americans, who also probably missed this story, which would have helped them understand why the cartoons matter).  And, although the MSM is quick to condemn every battlefield mistake by an American soldier, it has very little interest in commenting on the disturbing and undeniable compatibility of violence and Islam.  This timidity and inappropriate relativism helps no one.  Protected from the critical eye of world opinion, radical excess and medieval depravity are flourishing and, as evidenced by the significant number of European Muslims that appear to think murdering a journalist is an acceptable substitute for a letter to the editor, exported to the civilized world.  Conversely, because the popularity of such views is seldom explored by the MSM, most Americans are probably much more optimistic than they should be about the possibility of peaceful co-existence. Even those who are aware of the threat betray a certain optimism; based on all the available evidence, it's not unreasonable to ask whether the term "Islamofascism" might be a tad euphemistic. 

To the extent there really is such a thing as moderate Islam, it’s time we started trying to find out what it is and where it can be found.  And if, as Americans are so often told, moderate Muslims are indeed the majority and not the exception, it’s time to start asking why they tend to keep such a low profile.

Comments

[Sean]

Nice post. I liked this one a lot and agree with it almost word-for-word. The only thing I would take issue with is your failure to criticize Bush and the other christers who feel a remote kinship and empathy with the assorted nuts of mohammed and offered luke warm platitudes about not giving offense to muslims.

Also, MSM, can we all just stop calling mohammed "the prophet?" He's not "the prophet." He's certainly not "The" prophet where christians and jews are concerned. Where does the MSM refer to jesus christ generically as "the savior?"