Prof: Free speech requires measure of responsibility

MOSCOW - Lawrence Pintak said deciding whether to run offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad is not simply a matter of freedom of the press.

It is also about having journalistic responsibility.

"The bottom line is just because the media has the right to publish something doesn't mean they should," said Pintak, founding dean of Washington State University's Edward R. Murrow College of Communication.

Several media outlets nationwide have taken this approach to printing cartoons featured in the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo in the days following an attack on its newsroom.

Two al-Qaida-linked brothers shot and killed 12 people - including eight journalists, two police officers, a maintenance worker and visitor - when they entered the Paris-based weekly publication's newsroom Wednesday.

The attack was reportedly to avenge the honor of the Prophet Muhammad at the direction of al-Qaida's Yemen branch. Charlie Hebdo routinely targeted the Islamic figure.

Brothers Said Kouachi, 34, and Cherif Kouachi, 32, were killed Friday after leading police on a chase through northeastern France. The men had been on the run for three days before authorities were able to locate them and an accomplice, who killed another four hostages at a supermarket to help them escape.

Pintak, who is a former CBS News Middle East correspondent, said he is sympathetic to what happened at Charlie Hebdo, but the editor went out of his way to be provocative. Pintak said he believes journalists need to bring a level of responsibility to their work.

Any news organization has the right to publish "horribly offensive cartoons" about a number of different groups, Pintak said. But he said they should question the purpose of publishing them.

"Is the point of journalism to report the news to hold people in power accountable or is the purpose of news to offend?" Pintak said.

The question for University of Idaho ethics instructor Steve Smith is whether the newsworthiness of the event requires the cartoons to tell readers the whole story, despite the content being highly offensive.

Smith, a former Spokesman-Review editor, said there is the option of describing the cartoons, but he thinks seeing the images can be important in framing the event. At the same time, he understands the conflict over publication because it is offensive and goes beyond simple satire.

But for S.M. (Ghazi) Ghazanfar, a UI emeritus professor of economics and a Muslim, that doesn't justify republishing the cartoons, which he said are offensive to a population of 2 billion people and often obscene.

"This is not a very good reason, in my opinion," said Ghazanfar, who recently moved from Moscow to Georgia. "Just publishing them can be very offensive and provocative to some people."

Ghazanfar said he doesn't know a single Muslim who would say the men in Paris did the right thing by attacking the magazine. In fact, killing innocent people goes directly against Islamic scripture.

But the Prophet Muhammad is held in the highest esteem for members of the Islamic faith, he said. He said the cartoons are derogatory toward Muslims, much like some depictions 50 years ago were demeaning toward blacks, American Indians or Jews.

Unlike the societal changes regarding those groups, Ghazanfar said many media organizations are still at ease with publishing offensive content about Muslims. He said Americans have a number of freedoms, but they are not unlimited - there needs to be a point where one person's freedom stops so another's can begin.

"No freedoms are absolute," he said. "There must be some constraints."

Pintak said news agencies deciding not to run the cartoons could be viewed as being intimidated, or as being responsible. Media outlets already think twice about running offensive cartoons about American Christians or Jews, he said.

"Are they informing or are they inflaming?" Pintak asked.

Journalists make decisions every day based on that responsibility, Pintak said. It would be the same decision-making process that is involved for choosing to not run the name of a rape victim or of a child who has been molested, he said.

"We are asking these questions all the time," he said.

---

Rudd may be contacted at erudd@lmtribune.com or (208) 791-8465. Follow her on Twitter @elizabeth_rudd.