Left2Right Comments

David Velleman wrote: "But I cannot shake the sense that the American press is bowing to illegitimate pressure. This sense is based partly on my belief in the importance of reproducing even the worst materials for the purpose of documenting and studying racial and religious hatred. (Here is a good example.) No matter how offensive the Danish cartoons were when originally published, they must be reproduced in order to be studied and discussed."

Who exactly is the illegitimate pressure coming from? Remember, the mainstream media is first a business and 2nd a medium for information flow.

Certainly scholars (and anybody else who's interested) should have access to materials to study hatred or whatever else, but it's not the mainstream media's job to provide that access. If they determine that revenues will be hurt by publication, they have every right not to publish. There are plenty of alternate ways to get access to the pictures.
 

If what matters is the intention behind the representational act, it is the intention, not the act, what should be the object of our study. It is therefore unnecessary to publicize the offending pictures, even if they can only offend someone who fails to draw the distinction between intending and representing.
 

Bret writes that the maintsream media is first a business. This is descriptively true, of course, but misses the point of ideas like "journalistic responsibility" or "journalistic integrity." These phrases, like evaluations of the "Better Business Bureau," suggest that businesses and the press have ethical obligations beyond - and quite apart from -- their financial interests. The press, in presenting an account of distant event as the truth, has some obligations not to mislead or distort the facts. What David Velleman is suggesting is that the press fails that standard if it presensts an account of mass riots, without giving any sense of their inspiration. That inspiration, he claims, can only be adequately depicted visually, in the case of the cartoons of Mohammed, rather than verbally. So the articles are distorting the facts by describing a mass (apparently excessive) reaction but understating its object. In other words, the articles misrepresent what they purport to describe.
 

issac,
So your concept is misrepresentation by omission? In other words, by leaving out details, the situation is misrepresented?

Maybe, but in every story, there are far more details left out than included. Some details may be important. Detailed background information (at least that which is known) on every riot participant and victim, for example.

I'm unconvinced that publishing the cartoons, rather than just pointing out that somebody found them offensive, would've changed the meaning of the story significantly. My guess is that there are many other details, left out for the sake of taking up too much space, that were likely to have been more important.
 

Isaac,

I don't think DV is making the claim that you attribute to him--i.e., that the press if failing to comply with some journalistic obligation. For one thing, professional obligations arise from the reasonable expectations of those who rely on the professional's skill and care. The reasonable expectations of the public vis-a-vis the media is the exercise of reasonable care to discover important information (as determined by the needs/interests of its readership) and report that information accurately. The obligation , it merits repeating, is defined by reasonable care under the circumstances. Compromises will often be reasonable due to time constraints, financial constraints, barriers to information, and other phenomena out of the reporter's control. That said, I think it is unreasonable to expect a journalist (or news operation) to risk serious harm for the sake of completeness, at least if there is nothing misleading about the incomplete coverage. And, I'm sorry, but I don't see how omitting these cartoons manages to mislead in any way, given the fact that an adequate description of the same has been offered. Just as reporters are not under an obligation to risk their lives to cover Iraq with ideal completeness, they are not under an obligation to risk serious harm to give ideal coverage here. Bret is right in this sense, but I'm not sure DV is saying they do have such an obligation. He is using less imperative language.

All that DV is saying (explicitly, at least) is that publishing the actual cartoons is important or valuable. But, to say something is important does not entail a categorical obligation on the part of journalists to publish the cartoons. It is simply a reason in favor of doing so, although this reason may be overriden by reasons for not doing so. In this case, I am not comfortable criticizing the media's hesitation to publish the cartoons, given the violent reactions they have provoked. I do agree with DV that the pressure from those offended is in most instances illegitimate (i.e., unjustified). But, I can't blame them for bowing to this pressure, especially since the cartoons are available online for the diligent and curious--which are those who care to study the cartoons. For a newspaper to publish them is a needless risk to take. But, I share DV's frustration that illegitimate pressure has been effective. We want the press to have balls, but there are limits to what we can reasonable expect. I don't think the value of this information (and its less risky availability online) is sufficient to justify heated criticism of the media who omitted the info.

Of course, we can still rightly complain about the illegitimate pressure of those offended and make the case for the permissibility of publication. Then we would be talking about Freedom and Offense.