What should news websites do about the offensive Muhammad
cartoons? Obviously, that’s been a hot potato of a topic in recent
days, as the issue and the protests continue to rage. I was intrigued
to read of the decision by National Public Radio to not even provide a
link to the cartoons on its websites, which is explained in a column today by NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin. NPR will stick to describing the cartoons in its audio and text reports.
This is a topic I’ve pondered before on this blog: What should websites
do with images that are highly offensive to some people? It’s similar
to the debate over past terrorist videos of beheadings — images that
the majority of editors in the world found too offensive and disgusting
to publish. But a small number of news websites did offer their readers
links to external websites where the beheading videos could be seen,
along with warnings of the graphic nature of what would be seen should
the link be clicked.
I tend to think that the Muhammad cartoons should be treated similarly.
It’s a well-known fact that the cartoons can be found easily on the Web
(try typing “Muhammad cartoons” or “Muhammed cartoons” into Google Images),
so to deny your website readers information on how to find them strikes
me as a disservice. (Savvy readers will simply turn to more
free-wheeling blogs, many of which tend to be less likely to censor
themselves.)
Publishing the cartoons directly on your website
could be viewed as making a political statement. But linking to the
cartoons as published by another party — along with clear warnings
about what’s ahead, and links to reasoned discussion of the debate over
free expression vs. cultural sensitivity — seems to me to be a
responsible decision.
That’s my opinion, and it does not necessarily reflect the position of
the Poynter Institute (my employer) or its staff. For an in-depth
examination of this issue, be sure to read or listen to this roundtable discussion by some of my Poynter colleagues.
