Let me be clear. The right to artistic expression must be defended. In all cases. No matter what. At any cost. No compromises. Without exception. Artists are either free to express themselves, or they are not. There’s no purgatory.
Like being “kinda’ pregnant,” there’s no “sorta’ free” category. We’re either all free to write, draw, film, sculpt, paint, dance, sing, or whatever as we see fit. Or…if any individual is denied that inherent right protected in all free societies or in any way becomes somehow forbidden to express what’s happening through official edict or by intimidation, then none of us really have any rights. In essence, it just means we’re tolerated.
If someone paints a picture of the Pope with a penis in his mouth, each one of us must defend that artist’s fundamental right to free expression. Not because we endorse it, or we approve. In fact, we might think it’s crude and terribly inappropriate. But the right of that artist must be protected, as well as defended whenever threatened. In all cases. No matter what. At any cost. No compromises. Without exception.
Am I making myself clear?
If someone writes a movie script that contains an inflammatory scene with a fictional couple of jokers trying to assassinate the leader of a foreign country (or even our own president for the sake of argument), we must defend the right of this movie to not only be made but be distributed in theaters. Is such a movie distasteful? Maybe. Hateful? Perhaps. Does the movie suck? Probably. That doesn’t matter. Let the public decide.
We’re all fair game. Everyone becomes fair game, especially when in the public arena. Anything goes. If, or when, either libel or slander occurs, or someone yells “fire” inside a crowded movie theater, then there are applicable criminal and civil laws that govern that, too. Most of the so-called free world adheres to these guiding principles, although some of our most distinguished media guardians now seem to have forgotten it, or do understand, yet are too gutless to do the right thing.
Shame on them.
By now, you probably know The New York Times steadfastly refuses to print any of the controversial materials which incited hysterical Islamic fanatics to heave a devastating barrage of terrorist attacks on journalists working at a satirical newspaper, based in Paris. To make this simpler to understand, it would be like a bunch of religious extremists storming the offices of The Onion. Then, one of the leading media outlets in the country refusing to show or explain what caused all the furor.
What was the target of such hostile wrath of violence? A book? No. A duplicitous investigation and slanted expose on how the so-called prophet Muhammad was, in reality, an illiterate child molester (which he was)? No, not even that. They won’t print — now get this — a cartoon.
What’s the big deal about a cartoon? And even if it’s deemed inappropriate, isn’t that kind of the point of everything? Isn’t the shock value the mental jolt originally designed by the artist? What’s a cartoon, particularly about politics, supposed to convey anyway? Peace and harmony? Fuck no! Words and ideas (and even drawings) make us all stronger when they reveal something we might now have contemplated before. We win, whenever we are exposed to something new and different. And, if our sensibilities get offended, why, we can always turn the page. Isn’t that how journalism works?
The New York Times editorial board is getting bombarded for this display of cowardice, for failing to show the cartoon. And rightfully so. But some light criticism by a few intellectuals on social media and a couple of barbed editorials by free press advocates doesn’t go nearly far enough. It’s time to call out some people, point some fingers, and start canceling subscriptions. Because there’s no point in supporting a newspaper with so little backbone. Why bother reading the rag?
Since when does the pompous-assed self-proclaimed “newspaper of record” back off from reporting the news? Since when does this bastion of information on contemporary events run and hide for cover when faced with threats? Since when does the same newspaper which has consistently published innumerable photos of dead bodies, quoted incendiary remarks, and posted grotesque images offensive to millions, suddenly concern itself with what might annoy some people? They cover the New York Knicks, don’t they? That’s the ultimate manifestation of bearing bad news.
As partial justification for their decision, The Times editorial board insists they view the material as offensive. Fair enough. Some people probably would be offended. But are these really the standards journalism should abide by — refusing to run articles, photos, or cartoons that might bother a certain segment of readers? Isn’t the very purpose of our media to reveal that which we do not know, and sometimes even to challenge us in ways we don’t expect? Isn’t this newspaper predicated upon the old dictum, “All the News that’s Fit to Print?”
Keyword: ALL
Let’s amend that to — “SOME OF the News that’s Fit to Print Unless Someone Gets Offended, Then We Back Down.”
Chalk up one for the terrorists and religious fruitcakes. Game. Set. Match. They just won. The free world lost. All thanks to the culpable cowards at The New York Times.
This introduces a much bigger concern. Once free expression and artistic freedom are threatened, we’re pretty much fucked. It means, we can’t trust writers and editors, and journalists to tell us the truth. Never. We have to wonder — what else are they hiding? What secrets are they not revealing, because they don’t want to risk offending a segment of readers? Is what we are reading and seeing the whole truth, or just a portion of the real story? If they’d bury a cartoon, don’t you suspect they might also shy away from things even more consequential?
Sadly, this decision isn’t much of a surprise. Anyone who has followed The New York Times closely for any period of time knows of their beguiling ways. It’s the false citadel of leftist thought, instead of wielding itself to the financial pipeline of big business and the power establishment. Indeed, The New York Times is the American establishment. It was the establishment of this nation since its very beginning, and it remains so. It’s the voice of and for self-aggrandizing Northeastern elites who get a hard-on when seeing their name appearing in a Tom Freidman column. By the way, Friedman is one of the few Times’ writers I like. If you’re really seeking unfiltered news and alternative expression, then look elsewhere.
Consider, for instance, The Times’ decades-long refusal to review any books whatsoever by noted author Gore Vidal while he was enjoying his heyday as one of America’s most respected writers and social commentators. After Vidal wrote a somewhat scandalous book in 1948 (scandalous for its time) titled “The City and the Pillar,” which was a coming of age story about a man who just so happened to be homosexual, the print bulwark of progressive ideas wouldn’t touch one of Vidal’s books for the next 30 years.
The list of scurrilous and shameful misdeeds this newspaper has done over the years, including some more recently, is just as troubling. Consider former national correspondent Judith Miller’s atrocious coverage of events leading up to the Iraq War, which seems almost to have been cut and pasted from a Bush Administration memo. On the front page of The New York Times, Miller was granted the most valuable parcel of journalistic real estate to promulgate an assembly line of lies. It wasn’t just bad reporting. It wasn’t just lazy journalism. This was Times’ correspondent Judith Miller endorsing the Bush Administration’s deception that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. In one since-disgraced front-page story, Miller even reported Iraq had been close to building a nuclear weapon. All of that we later found out, was bullshit. By the way, Miller was later hired as an analyst by FOX News.
On and on.
The Times’ refusal to print the French cartoon and reveal what all the fuss was about is consistent with a more recent pattern of gutlessness. Back in 2007, when Islamic radicals threatened to murder workers at a Danish newspaper for publishing a cartoon that was deemed as blasphemous, that deplorable incident made international headlines. Did readers have the need to know what was so offensive to some Muslims about the cartoon? Absolutely. Did The New York Times adhere to its journalistic responsibilities and provide its readers with the valuable service which gave information to them? No way. The quivering chicken shits refused to print the Danish cartoon back then, too. Nothing’s changed.
The most troubling aspect of this utter abdication of journalistic responsibility isn’t what’s happened in the past, or even now. It’s fear for what the future might bring. Media has already been gobbled up and compromised by corporations. News divisions must now produce a profit. Working in media doesn’t pay particularly well. And, it’s often a high-stress job. For journalists who work in areas of conflict, the risk of death is very real. Fact is, we need journalists. We need people willing to ask tough questions. We need investigators. Without the media, we become not just less informed, but dumb. A free society desperately needs what The Times professes to be, but which it fails to deliver. We must have those willing to dig a little deeper and go where others dare not tread.
I have some tough words for the cowards who operate and make decisions at The New York Times: You are a disgrace to your profession. You don’t deserve to hoist the same torch as the fine men and women at other news organizations who preceded you, journalists who were (and are) truly brave in the line of fire. Fortunately, there are still some who venture into the darkest places on the earth and are determined to shed light. The New York Times has now become part of that same darkness.
Borrowing a line from fellow writer Michelle Malkin, The New York Times has become “the fish wrap of record.”
Wrapping dead fish. That’s about all it’s good for nowadays.
Postscript: Since The New York Times refuses to do its job, I’ll do it for them. I’ll stand with The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, and several major European publications which have printed these supposedly inflammatory cartoons (s) that led to yet more acts of extremism and violence. So these are the drawings that caused a bunch of religious lunatics to murder journalists?
