Why Is It So Difficult For The Media Just To Say “Sorry”?

Philip Stone February 13, 2006

A Danish reader took ftm to task this past week for saying that Jyllands-Posten had apologized for printing the 12 cartoons that caused riots throughout the world by protesting Muslims. There was no apology for printing the cartoons, we were told, but rather the apology was if the cartoons caused any offense.
Go To Follow Up & Comments

And there’s the fine line in all of this. The politicians trying to stem the crisis, even the Danish prime minister in his English language comments, says the newspaper has “apologized” without going into the details of the nuance – not apologizing for printing the cartoons but rather apologizing to those who may have been offended by the cartoons.

We asked that Danish reader whether she thought it correct that the culture editor of the newspaper, Fleming Rose, was trying to contact the Iranian newspaper, Hamrishi, to see if he could print on the same day the anti -Semitic cartoons the newspaper was seeking in a contest.

Also whether the Danish interpretation of freedom of the press and social responsibility was that it would be all right to go ahead and print those offending anti-Semitic cartoons just as long as the newspaper issued an apology afterwards to anyone (read: Jews) who might be offended by such cartoons?

We never got an answer to that question from that reader, although Jyllands-Posten itself seemed to answer it by putting Fleming Rose on indefinite vacation and saying that under no circumstances would the newspaper be printing those Iranian cartoons.

And as the protests through Islam continued this past week the exasperation felt by global politicians was bubbling. UN Secretary General Kofi Anan told reporters he could not understand how editors around the world, practicing responsibility with their freedom of speech, could possibly continue to fuel the flames by additional  printing of  those cartoons. He has a point.

Jyllands-Posten has always had the benefit of the doubt that when it printed the 12 cartoons it did not know that this could be an offense to Muslims. But when it was told it was it still did nothing ( a mistake) and it was only once the riots began that the newspaper issued its apology.

But all the other media that have printed those cartoons knew full well because of those riots that the continued re-printing of those cartoons would continue the protests, continue the burning of embassies, continue the economic boycotts.  In the name of what – freedom of the press?

A good example of the nonsense going on happened on the other side of the world in New Zealand. Well after the initial protests that led the global media to understand these cartoons were deemed offensive to Muslims, the Fairfax newspapers The Dominion Post, The Press and The Nelson Mail, plus TV3 and TVNZ published those same cartoons.

Prime Minister Helen Clark left no doubt she thought it was wrong to do so, but press freedom is press freedom and one lives with the consequences -- "I have said very firmly that I feel the decision to publish in New Zealand was ill-judged and gratuitous," she said. "I have said for the record that neither the publications nor the extreme reactions to the publications do anything to advance the understanding between faiths."

The wool and lamb exporters were horrified they would lose all of their Middle East business where lamb is particularly favored and the export business runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

And so with that damage under its belt the New Zealand media then meets with the Race Relations Commissioner. A statement follows saying no one intended to offend anyone, the media does apologize for causing any offense, but it specifically does not apologize for publishing the cartoons.

It goes to show just howhypercritical the media can get Those New Zealand media knew those cartoons were offensive to Muslims; it knew that Middle East politicians were looking how to boycott other countries that reprinted those cartoons; and it knew the publication could likely put New Zealand diplomatic representation in the Middle East in danger. And yet knowing all of that beforehand – an advantage Jyllens-Posten did not have – that media still took the decision to publish and be damned, and then to try and make it ok if necessary by apologizing if someone was offended. Pure nonsense!

Perhaps if the media had met with the Race Relations Commissioner before publication he might have given them some sound advice like – “don’t do it”! And then a responsible press decides the right thing to do. Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t always mean that you have to do it!

And then there is all of that reprinting in the European media – although not, noticeably, in the UK. Many European newspapers did it to show that freedom of the press remains supreme and no one – absolutely no one – is going to dictate what it can and cannot print short of blasphemy or libel -- a right many would fight to the end to protect.

But in making the decision to re-print, the word “responsibility” was nowhere to be found. And just as many of the riots against the cartoons were probably the creation of those who wanted to use the masses for their own manipulations, so, too, perhaps some editors wanted to send some messages to Muslims, too, like “You can’t tell us what we can and cannot print!”

And for others the message may have been even cruder – This is as good a way as any to get circulation up!

France was shocked last week when the satirical weekly Charlie-Hebdo reprinted the cartoons. Normal circulation is 100,000 but the weekly printed 60,000 additional that quickly sold out. The magazine then printed a second run of 160,000. The French Council for the Muslim Faith says it is going to sue for incitement to hatred. It had tried a pre-publication ban that a court rejected on a technicality.

France-Soir, the Paris afternoon daily that has fallen on very hard times with circulation down to around 60,000 from the 1 million of 30 years ago, has discovered its name is now recognized again after publishing the cartoons two weeks ago. Of course, the publication of those cartoons saw the managing editor fired by the newspaper’s owner, an Egyptian Christian, but it does go to show there is nothing like a good controversy to boost circulation.

Getting a newspaper to admit a mistake is like pulling teeth. To many editors it is seen as a sign of weakness. Actually it is a sign of strength and confidence in itself.

Jyllands-Posten’s apology was written in three languages – Danish, English and Arabic -- and spread across its front page, but that is by far the exception, not the norm. The only time this writer can remember seeing such an apology was back in the late 1970s when the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter ran a front page banner accusing a Parliamentarian of being a pedophile; the next day it ran just as big a banner in apology for the falsehood! (and one can only imagine what its lawyers told it)

Usually apologies are buried where few will find them – although some enlightened newspapers now place apologies in a regular position – usually on page 2.  That Jyllands-Posten apologized for causing offense but not for the printing of the cartoons themselves is a nuance many won’t understand, and those who do will use to further their own aims. Simple is usually best. One word would have been enough: Sorry!

And for those newspapers that apologized if they caused offense, knowing full-well before publication that they would cause offense – that is nothing more than shedding crocodile tears – and it is very unbecoming of a responsible media.

ftm Follow Up & Comments

WAN Protests Repression of Editors Who Published Cartoons - February 20, 2006

The World Association of Newspapers (WAN) and World Editors Forum have written to the governments of Algeria, Yemen, Malaysia, Jordan, and Russia, protesting against a wave of repressive action against editors and other journalists in Arab and Muslim countries who have published the cartoons of Muhammad in the center of the current cartoon controversy.

Paris-based WAN and WEF want the jailed journalists freed and their banned publications reopened.

"While appreciating that the cartoons have caused offence to many Muslims, we respectfully remind you that the decision as to whether or not to publish such material is an editorial decision and not one with which the State should interfere," the letters said.

In Algeria, Kamel Bousaad, Director of the weekly Panorama and Berkane Bouderbala, Director of the weekly Essafir were arrested, and their publications closed, after they printed the cartoons that were first published in Denmark.

In Yemen, the Editor-in-Chief of the Yemen Observer, Mohammad al-Asaadi, and two journalists from al-Hurriya -- the Managing Editor, Abd al-Karim Sabra and a reporter, Yehiya al-Abed -- were jailed. An arrest warrant has been issued for Kamal al-Aalafi, the editor-in-chief of al-Rai al-Aam. The publishing licenses of all three newspapers have been revoked.

In Malaysia, the government closed the regional daily Sarawak Tribune for publishing the cartoons on 4 February and declared it an offence for anyone to publish, produce, import, circulate or possess the caricatures.

In Russia, authorities in Volgograd closed Volgograd-Info after the Gorodski Vesti newspaper published a cartoon in which caricatures of Christ, Moses, Buddha and Muhammad were featured. The four religious figures were seated in front of a television set that showed two groups of men about to fight. "We never taught them that!" the caption read.

WAN and the WEF had earlier protested to the Jordanian government against the jailings of Editors Jihad Momani of the weekly Shihan and Hisham Khalidi of al-Mehwar, for re-publishing the cartoons. The editors have subsequently been released on bail.