Hi Cornel, I have been working on the response to your views about the Denmark press story. Usually with a "considered response", I tend to take some time to finesse my thoughts and writings. Hence I hope you pardon this delay.
I agree with you about the appalling response of the uncontrolled Muslim crowds to the issue. However, as seen on the TV, the mob scenes were emotional and the reactions were individually driven in nature; though there may be instigators at the various demonstrations across the Muslim world. However, I hold the Danish editors to a higher standard because: 1. They were more educated. 2. Their decisions were from serious discussions around a conference table. 3. Their poor decisions reflect the poor choices made after considerable deliberations by a body of supposedly enlightened people. 4. These poor choices were not the first time as reflected by their prior printings of cartoons about other religions. 5. The paper hung itself and their country with its own long rope of "press freedom." 6. Boycotting Danish products was the right (and expensive) response. It is one that's adopted in the west to issues the consumers do not appreciate. The issue to me is NOT freedom of the press (which is a given). The issue is educated people in a hierarchical and systematic manner using poor judgement. Using good judgment (in what is printed) is expected and used by the press all the time - "Freedom of the press" not withstanding. Everybody in society is expected to use good judgment and not abuse their freedoms or push the limits of their rights to the max. This specially applies to "liberals". One does not need to print the cartoons to describe the situation / issue. Just like one does not need to show a picture of rape to present a story on rape. And one doesn't have a nude picture to talk about prostitution, etc. Hence the Prime Minister of Denmark should have / could have apologized for the poor judgement used by the largest newspaper in the country. This, rather than trying to cop out and frame it as a "freedom of press" issue. Both the educated and the uneducated could see through this argument for different reasons. The same applies to other British and U.S. newspapers who elected to publish or not publish the cartoons. In many respects we tend to be on the same page, with perhaps a little different emphasis on various aspects of these issues. I am amazed by the poor judgements sometimes used by the media in their attempt to cover TV program time or newsprint space. Right now Fox News is bombarding us with stories and repeated interviews of a 16-yr old boy from Aruba. He may or may not have murdered a young American girl on vacation in Aruba. Most of the post-interview analysis of this boy's testimony (without his attorney) is telling us "how the boy is lying." So why show us the interview and bore us with five lawyers and even more TV commentators analyzing this kid's testimony - done without his attorney? These (the utility) are issues one would think news reporters and editors (and others) would think about on a routine basis? And at the same time, there was minimal coverage of Bush's peaceful and productive visit to India. Kind regards and good wishes, GL
