According to columnist Andrew Alexander, the Washington Post’s editors recently pulled a Non Sequitor comic strip by Wiley Miller, because they were “concerned it might offend and provoke some Post readers, especially Muslims,” (thanks for the link @joshuafoust). Alexander wrote,
Miller is known for social satire. But at first glance, the single-panel cartoon he drew for last Sunday seems benign. It is a bucolic scene imitating the best-selling children’s book “Where’s Waldo?” A grassy park is jammed with activity. Animals frolic. Children buy ice cream. Adults stroll and sunbathe. A caption reads: “Where’s Muhammad?“
Here’s the key part – Miller didn’t actually depict Prophet Muhammad in the cartoon, [which you can see here]. That was the point of his satire, though the Post’s editors still felt the cartoon seemed like “a deliberate provocation without a clear message.” Miller reportedly responded angrily, telling Alexander it was a commentary on “the insanity of an entire group of people rioting and putting out a hit list over cartoons,” as well as “media cowering in fear of printing any cartoon that contains the word ‘Muhammad.’ ” He added, “The wonderful irony [is that] great newspapers like The Washington Post, that took on Nixon . . . run in fear of this very tame cartoon, thus validating the accuracy of the satire.”
A few people have since weighed in on the Post’s decision. Reason Magazine wrote,
If the Post‘s new standard for comics is to make jokes “immediately clear,” then it might be time to kill the comics page altogether. No, Martel/Brauchli, you pulled the cartoon because your fear of Muslims outweighs your commitment to free expression, period.
According to the LA Times’ James Rainey (the LA Times also yanked the cartoon), fear was not the reason the editors’ decided not to publish the cartoon, it was instead a matter of “expediency.” He noted that The Boston Globe had a similar complaint. Deputy managing editor Christine Chinlund noted,
When a cartoon takes on a sensitive subject, especially religion, it has an obligation to be clear. The ‘Where’s Muhammad’ cartoon did not meet that test. It leaves the reader searching for clues, staring at a busy drawing, trying to discern a likeness, wondering if the outhouse at the top of the drawing is significant — in other words, perplexed.
I’ve written extensively about the South Park cartoon controversy as well as the controversial “Draw Muhammad Day!” which spurred indignation, hate-mongering on both sides, and even resulted in the Lahore High Court banning Facebook back in May. There is a fine line between freedom of expression and needless provocation, and the Danish cartoon controversy and subsequent events have made that line even finer.
But the recent censorship of Wiley Miller seems to signify just how thin that line has become, and how overly sensitive and politically correct the world feels it has to be to avoid backlash, and let’s be honest, death threats and fatwas. By pulling the plug on relatively mild pieces, they are intensifying the sensitivity on the issue, to the point where we are equating Islamophobic cartoons that are genuinely insulting to satirical pieces that editors fear will “perplex” Muslim readers. Not all Muslims need to be treated with kid gloves, and the more hypersensitive we become on that issue, the more it validates cartoonists like Miller’s point.
A good way of putting it Kalsoom. I seems that the line has already been crossed.
Personally, if I was a Muslim I would feel insulted that someone thinks I’m so fragile as to get worked up into an insane rage over a cartoon that doesn’t even show anything!
Right, I agree. But that fragile handling of this situation did stem from a series of incidents (South Park, Draw Muhammad Day, etc.) that led editors to this point. I’d like to see it more as a cycle or as action-reaction. I think the Wash Po decision does bring up really interesting discussion on this entire issue and where that line between freedom of expression and legitimate “censorship” starts and ends.
Hi Kulsum,
I really do think that you (and the commentors) speak for themselves alone when they say that they would feel insulted by such “kid gloves handling”. Do not forget that a little more than a month back, 17 people were killed following Police firing of a violent mob that torched government buildings and created mayhem following an Iranian channel’s broadcast and unnecessarily provocative coverage of the Gainesville crazies.
This was calculated rioting and destruction of government property following a *rumored* act of desecration.
A little over 6 months back, there were angry protests when Shapiro in South Africa drew a cartoon satirizing the protests following the “Draw Muhammed” SouthPark controversy.
Arguably, there are other groups of people who are touchy about a transgression from their point of view in the depiction of an issue (Indian and Chinese nationalists, White Supremacists, Andrea Dworkin-esque feminists), but we must concede that the muslim community has shown itself to be remarkably malleable to the hectoring of television anchors and tele-evangelistic polemic, often erupting in violence at perceived slights a few continents away and inflicting harm upon their own local structures and people.
In such a case, it is only natural that concerned media owners will shun the community in their depiction, and also instruct their satirists to leave them alone.
The prickliness of the Islamic community is directly responsible for this kneejerk defensiveness.
The absence of audible liberal moderate voices in any debate pertaining to Islam, the inability to have a sense of humor about any issues pertaining to their religion by the Muslim community and the complete self-identification of ordinary muslims with the Islamic identity as the overwhelming and primal identity (overriding other allegiances of political, ideological of philosophical construct) engenders this response.
[…] social satire. But at first glance, the single-panel cartoon he drew […] Read more at: CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan andrew alexander, comic strip, deliberate provocation, first glance, free expression, grassy […]
The line is really blurry. Cant blame then to be on the safer side. The ball in not in their court. The ball is in the opposite court.
They tried to talk about the Muslims in their own way and Muslims got worked for it ,there by making the line blurry. You, being a Muslim, can decide where the line starts and ends but they cant.
I dont see anything wrong with what they did. You either give them complete freedom to talk about ‘you’ or dont care that they dont give ‘you’ enough attention or when they intentionally ignore ‘you’.
Yeah, but you say “Muslims” like we all have one voice and agree on one thing, which we definitely don’t. Too often the voice of hardline groups and fringe elements define what “all Muslims” feel, because they’re more vocal. I agree with you that it’s up to us to define where that line is, but that “us” is a very blurry term in of itself.
The majority have to make sure the minority don’t seem to be representing them on the world stage.
This responsibility lies with the Good guys to fight and make the Bad guys irrelevant.
In the West, the good guys make fun of right-wing nuts who even deny Theory of Evolution. The saner one’s have made sure the right-wingers are laughed upon when they uphold their absurd theories. That is what needs to happen to the Muslim world. They seriously have to relax and think before reacting.
Ugh ridiculousness ensued when Bill O’Reilly came on the View: Please note he said “Muslims killed us on 9/11.” Dangerous statement to make.