Publishing
those cartoons was a mistake
Zsofia Szilagyi
International Herald Tribune
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2006
BUDAPEST The Western news media is unlikely to heed the UN secretary
general, Kofi Annan, and the European politicians who have condemned
the provocative nature of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad,
which have provoked rage in the Muslim world. But it does need to
engage in serious debate about its preferred role in mediating between
cultures. This should start with the admission that publishing and
republishing the cartoons was a grave mistake.
Of course, the Danish and Norwegian newspapers that originally
published the cartoons had no intention of setting off mass
demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of their products
in the Middle East. They simply wanted to make a statement about the
extensive self-censorship that has developed within news media and
artistic circles since the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh
in 2004.
But when making a point about self-censorship and press freedom,
newspapers should have considered the cartoons' potential effects on
Europe's growing anti-Islam sentiments. Why make a negative point about
Islam in an environment where Islam is already getting extensive
negative press through the coverage of hostage-takings, bombings and
terrorist groups?
On Monday, the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten issued a statement
regretting the offense the cartoons had caused to Muslims around the
world, but continued to insist that their publication was justified
under freedom of speech principles. To show solidarity, several
European newspapers republished the cartoons, some of them urging tough
action in defense of press freedom.
Newspaper editors should have been aware, however, that in a world of
global information flow there is an insurmountable contradiction
between traditional free speech values and public discussion about
Islam.
In our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be
inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural
context to another. Media messages, films and art works cannot be
addressed to a specific cultural group - traditional borders of culture
and nation no longer exist.
Whether we like it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one
another. This raises the stakes in the century-old debate on how to
strike a balance between individual and collective press freedom
rights.
The central question in this debate is as simple as it is difficult.
What is more important for the democratic advancement of a society - to
ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens (within the limits
marked by law) or to protect the collective interests of society?
Both these goals cannot be fully accomplished at the same time, and the
two dominant philosophies of the press - the libertarian and the social
responsibility theories - have come up with very different definitions
of the media's main mandate.
The former hails individual freedoms, even to the detriment of the
quality of media output, while the latter places more emphasis on the
media's responsibility in leading an informed, high-quality discussion,
with due respect for minority rights.
Backers of the social responsibility theory now have a new powerful
argument against the libertarians - that once messages are out in
public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple
interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas.
There is no doubt that freedom of speech is an essential foundation of
any democracy. But when newspapers insist on this right, they have to
understand that they do not - alone - create the context and lifespan
of their messages.
Freedom of speech has never been a static value, and the
responsibilities of the press evolve with every new social and
political development around the world - requiring the limits of media
output to be subjected to constant review.
The press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it
needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom.
(Zsofia Szilagyi is a Budapest-based political analyst and director of
the Human Rights Film Foundation.)