Press Freedom and Maturity
I read Andrew Sullivan regularly, in large part because he does a good job of doggedly following one or two stories at a time, in-between his other random comments. I always hesitate to recommend his weblog, though, because his style of posting results in a lot of content-poor posts and I sometimes find his positions to be poorly-considered. The result is a lot of posts simply consisting of links to news coverage and a short comment about why Andrew’s right, requiring the reader to go through a large volume of posts to determine exactly where he stands on an issue, as he seems to explicitly state his position only reluctantly. This isn’t the result of an attempt to avoid being nailed down– he tends to be consistent in his views and devoted to his principles– it’s more, I think, a product of laziness and a desire to maintain a high output.
That said, he’s been doggedly following the Muhammed cartoon controversy, and it would be a pleasure to see him develop a slightly more mature view of press freedom. In a post yesterday, he noted the suspension of two student editors:
Their offense? They provided information to their readers, critical to understanding a major global story. That’ll teach them to commit journalism.
Of course, he’s referring to the editors’ decision to publish the cartoons that sparked the current worldwide controversy. He’s at least consistent; he would have also published the photos from Abu Ghraib and aired the video of Nick Berg’s beheading. He’s failed on two counts, however.
First, for someone who prides himself on his journalistic credibility, he’s done an absolutely awful job of accurately representing the story. These two students who were “practicing journalism” ran the cartoons as an editorial statement without consulting the rest of the editorial board. Further, from the editorial board’s statement:
We want to make it clear that while we do not necessarily disagree with the decision to print these cartoons, we disagree with how they were run. There was a tactful way to do this, and it is unfortunate it was not run in that manner….This situation was bad enough, but Gorton tried to make it worse by writing yet another hasty column. He also brought in Humair Sabir to write the reaction in the Muslim community. With all due respect to Sabir, he has been friends with Gorton for one-and-a-half years, and one of the primary pillars of journalism is to NEVER interview one’s friends. This newspaper is appalled that Gorton would even consider using his friend in the newspaper as a voice for the Muslim community. To actually do it is beyond embarrassment.
This isn’t a case of the students being punished by the administration for exercising their right to freedom of speech. This is a case of students being punished by their peers for acting in a deceitful manner and engaging in poor journalistic practices. By representing the situation differently, Mr. Sullivan has failed his readers.
Second, his conception of press freedom is simply immature. Freedom of the press is freedom from prior restraint, it is not freedom from the consequences of one’s actions. To argue that everyone should publish cartoons that some find offensive to assert press freedom is silly, at least in America. How many editors feel that they cannot publish the cartoons for fear of repercussions to themselves or their papers? Not many– at worst, they might lose the subscriptions of some devout Muslims and their sympathizers. This is hardly censorship; individuals have a right to choose what they do and do not purchase, and some choose to stop purchasing newspapers because they dislike what they perceive as an anti-Christian bias, or because they can’t stand Sally Forth.
In fact, there’s a good reason other than fear to decide not to publish the cartoons: it would be bad journalistic practice. This is a rather unique situation, as the press is covering a press controversy, and by displaying the cartoons, a paper sacrifices its neutrality– it has cast its lot with those who approve of the publication of the cartoons. For Andrew’s sake, I’ll highlight two basic rules of journalism:
- Don’t create news, report it.
- Don’t become the news.
Finally… for my readers’ edification, the cartoons in question can be viewed by those who do not consider the depiction of Muhammed to be a sin (and even by those who do) here. I’m not personally offended by them, and I find the violence that is occurring overseas abhorrent. I simply find that the controversy created by publishing the cartoons in the United States would overshadow the informative value provided by their display; that because the act of publishing them is in large part the whole story, doing so again would sacrifice a paper’s neutrality; and that they’re easily found on the internet anyway, if someone is interested. Crying “press freedom!” as an excuse for ignoring these other considerations is immature– it reflects an unwillingness to accept the responsibility that comes along with freedom.