Still wants cartoons

There were more deaths internationally during the weekend because of the prophet cartoons, and at least one person locally still thinks the P-B should assert its free press rights by publishing them:

Attached is an article that appeared in today's Washington Post by Flemming Rose, the Culture Editor of the Danish newspaper which decided to publish the cartoons showing Muhammad which have created such an international incident including several deaths. The article explains his reasons for deciding to publish the cartoons.

While I understand and respect your reasons for deciding not to display the cartoons in the Post-Bulletin, I disagree with your decision. Where there is a close call, I would opt in the direction of disclosure and away from censorship, whether self-imposed or externally generated. I do not believe that the Press can serve the people in protecting and preserving this great nation in the manner that the Founding Fathers envisioned if the Press bows to either form of censorship.

There are already too many instances where the Press mutely accepts secrecy, and the inherent censorship associated with that secrecy, when it should be vigorously contesting the censorship, educating the public why the secrecy and censorship must   be  eliminated, and enlisting the public to its cause of openness. That clarion call is muted when the Press chooses to institute the same secrecy and censorship on itself.

You are engaged in an essential and noble profession. Please do not allow it to be tainted by dangerous restrictions, either self imposed or imposed upon you.

Sincerely,

Jim Colville
Rochester

The Post column is excellent and journalists around the world can respect and empathize with the Danish editor and his newspaper. That doesn't mean we share an editorial or cultural agenda, and republishing these provocative drawings at this late date, when they're easily described, would be more a political gesture than an editorial one.

Comments

[John Pittenger]

On a daily basis the P-B refrains from innapropriate language, nudity, ect. because it has long been deemed offensive to part of our society. The P-B did not to my knowledge run the pictures of burnt American soldiers for the same reason. Simply because one may disagree with the Islamic faith does not make it okay to offend them.
Censorship and excercising good taste may be divided by a thin line, but what the P-B did was I feel in the realm of good taste. Mr. Colville is correct that the press is an essential part of our society, but reporting the news does not necessarily require reckless sensationalism. Printing the cartoon would put the P-B and its' employees at risk of physical harm, so too would Mr. Colville standing in front of our Rochester Mosque with a picture of the prophet.
Not publishing the cartoon was a simple act of common sense and respect. Cheers to the P-B for excercising both.
John Pittenger