William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute and a former secretary of education. Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. Their jointly written essay, published Thursday in the Washington Post, says American's free press has surrendered after the latest volley. Here's an excerpt:
What has happened? To put it simply, radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists -- their threats more than their sensibilities. One did not see Catholics claiming the right to mayhem in the wake of the republished depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, any more than one saw a rejuvenated Jewish Defense League take to the street or blow up an office when Ariel Sharon was depicted as Hitler or when the Israeli army was depicted as murdering the baby Jesus.
So far as we can tell, a new, twin policy from the mainstream media has been promulgated: (a) If a group is strong enough in its reaction to a story or caricature, the press will refrain from printing that story or caricature, and (b) if the group is pandered to by the mainstream media, the media then will go through elaborate contortions and defenses to justify its abdication of duty. At bottom, this is an unacceptable form of not-so-benign bigotry, representing a higher expectation from Christians and Jews than from Muslims.
While we may disagree among ourselves about whether and when the public interest justifies the disclosure of classified wartime information, our general agreement and understanding of the First Amendment and a free press is informed by the fact -- not opinion but fact -- that without broad freedom, without responsibility for the right to know carried out by courageous writers, editors, political cartoonists and publishers, our democracy would be weaker, if not nonexistent. There should be no group or mob veto of a story that is in the public interest.
When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press -- an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms -- would be among the first to surrender.
Are they right? What do you think? Please use the comment button beneath this post to post your opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It is a pretty sad state for humankind to resort to belittling, persecuting, or otherwise making fun of any religion or culture. The fact that we do it in the name of our own religion makes the matter all the more rediculous. Why can't it stop somewhere?
So, is our media backing down to Islamic pressure or are we taking the high road?
I think Bennett and Dershowitz have a good point. Christians don’t blow people up in response to offensive material... Jews don’t blow people up... Neither do Budhists, atheists, Hindus, etc. Islamic extremists are the only group that commit terrorist attacks in response to what they don’t like, and yes, its scarey, but we can’t stop printing things out of fear of pissing off a group of people who are irrational and violent. I agree that the media is pandering to these extremists by giving them special consideration. I feel like we’re rewarding bad behavior.
And do we really believe that we can’t hold Muslims to the same considerations that we do everyone else? If so, then I agree with Bennett and Dershowitz that this is in and of itself a subtle form of bigotry. It’s like suggesting that Muslims must be more irrational and violent than those of other religions, and it may be getting the fundamentalists what they want, but its also very insulting. Or should be.
So has this fear of reprisal killed freedom of the press? The fact that Bennett and Dershowitz were published shows that the press is still free, so I don’t think so, but I do think that freedom has taken a hit. I think that if we aren’t careful, fear of terrorist reprisal can and probably will destroy freedom of the press eventually. We can’t show extremist fanatics that they have the power to control what gets printed or all hell will break loose.
I think Bennett and Dershowitz have a good point. Christians don’t blow people up in response to offensive material... Jews don’t blow people up... Neither do Budhists, atheists, Hindus, etc. Islamic extremists are the only group that commit terrorist attacks in response to what they don’t like, and yes, its scarey, but we can’t stop printing things out of fear of pissing off a group of people who are irrational and violent. I agree that the media is pandering to these extremists by giving them special consideration. I feel like we’re rewarding bad behavior.
And do we really believe that we can’t hold Muslims to the same considerations that we do everyone else? If so, then I agree with Bennett and Dershowitz that this is in and of itself a subtle form of bigotry. It’s like suggesting that Muslims must be more irrational and violent than those of other religions, and it may be getting the fundamentalists what they want, but its also very insulting. Or should be.
So has this fear of reprisal killed freedom of the press? The fact that Bennett and Dershowitz were published shows that the press is still free, so I don’t think so, but I do think that freedom has taken a hit. I think that if we aren’t careful, fear of terrorist reprisal can and probably will destroy freedom of the press eventually. We can’t show extremist fanatics that they have the power to control what gets printed or all hell will break loose.
Post a Comment