Yes, it's true that the shallow understanding of Islam that prevails in the US makes it very easy for people to interpret this controversy as evidence of whatever ill-informed prejudices they may have against Islam. From my point of view, it's perfectly legitimate for people to react against offensive cartoons. In sensible ways, that is, not by burning embassies nor in the JCS mode of trying to erode basic American democratic freedoms. That's what editorial cartoons are about, a way of stating an opinion. Some of them may be offensive or obnoxious or just plain bigoted. That's one of the main functions of free speech and a free press: to let everyone see who the blithering bigots are.
But what's going on right now with the hoopla over the Muhammad cartoons, whatever use demagogues may make of it, is an example of a clash between freedom of the press and the "shut-up-and-think-what-I-say-you-have-to" mentality, in this case being played out on the stage of a "globalized" world.
What's going on with the Joint Chiefs of Staff stepping way out of their appropriate role in a democracy and trying to use their official military positions to intimidate a civilian newspaper out of criticizing one of the most represhensible civilian officials (Rummy) ever to serve in the United Staes government is one more example of the increasing militarization and authoritarianism that certainly will make our American democracy at best an empty shell if the people don't demand that the process is reversed.
For the remainder of this post, I'm providing links to various sources on the JCS cartoon issue, which I think is far more significant than the relatively mild press coverage it seems to be receiving.
John Aravosis at his America blog has been following this story, and I'm going to borrow freely from his links here.
From President of Cartoonists Group Hails 'Wash Post' for Backing Toles by Dave Astor Editor and Publisher 02/02/06:
"They should be as concerned with the soldiers in the field as they are with a cartoon in The Washington Post," said Bennett, president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC), when reached Thursday by E&P. "Maybe they should provide the body armor soldiers need to help avoid the sort of injury shown in the cartoon." ...
"It appears they [the Joint Chiefs] interpret cartoons as accurately as they do pre-war intelligence," Bennett said. The Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist for The Christian Science Monitor added: "It was a tough cartoon on [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, but he certainly deserves tough cartoons."
This article includes a tidbit that caught my eye - Toles: Joint Chiefs Letter 'Unique' in His 'Wash Post' Tenure by Dave Astor Editor and Publisher 02/02/06:
Tom Toles said the letter the six members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent about his Sunday editorial cartoon was "unique" in his three-plus years at The Washington Post.
When asked if he received strong support from the Post after the angry Joint Chiefs letter was received, Toles replied: "Absolutely." The Post's Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt has defended running the cartoon. Toles said his mail has been running about 50-50 pro and con.
"Since I've been here, I've never received a single comment of any sort from the Bush administration or the military," he told E&P Thursday. Toles also isn't aware of any White House or military correspondence sent to Post executives about his previous cartoons. Hiatt told E&P he has received other letters from the Joint Chiefs, but never all six of them.
Say what? Members of the Joint Chiefs have been writing similar letters to the Post before? Maybe the Post has been reporting on it. Hopefully so. But I would have thought that the content of those earlier letters would have been worth some discussion in connection with the controversy over the Toles cartoon.
Hiatt's own response to the Chiefs' provocation in Sunday's Post is pretty sadly limp. Instead of saying that they should mind their own [Cheney]ing business - none of which is to do partisan PR for Rummy - Hiatt writes (The Goal Of These Pages Washington Post 02/05/06):
So why this cartoon? I respect the views of the chiefs, and of others who echoed their criticism, and I understand their reaction. But I don't agree with their reading of the cartoon. (Nor, by the way, did many other readers, who wrote to support Toles or take issue with the chiefs.) I think it's an indictment of Rumsfeld, who is portrayed as callous and inaccurate in his depiction of the Army and its soldiers. Whether that's fair to the defense secretary is a separate question. I don't believe Toles meant the cartoon to demean the soldiers themselves, and I don't think it did.
Hiatt discusses the JCS letter, written in their official capacity on JCS letterhead, as though it were just like a response from Joe Citizen, instead of a thoroughly inappropriate attempt by the top military officials to bully the newspaper into avoiding criticism of the reprehensible Don Rumsfeld.
Tom Toles himself appeared on CNN's "Paula Zahn Live" on 02/02/06:
TOLES: The way I look at it is this. Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed two serious reports about the damage that has been done to the U.S. Army and -- with the expression that it was battle-hardened. My feeling was that, in light of the damage that has been done to the Army, and the catastrophic suffering that has happened to a lot of American soldiers, that that expression did not appropriately cover the situation. And the cartoon was about my response to his -- his comment.
ZAHN: But you were accused of also making light of some of the life-threatening injuries these soldiers have sustained. What specifically were you trying to provoke, basically, by showing a depiction of a quadruple amputee?
TOLES: I have heard a lot about this cartoon in the last day.
And I think it was best put by a disabled woman who called me today from California. And she said that she looked at the cartoon, and she found it very painful. On the other hand, she also said that she support - understood the point of the cartoon, supported the cartoon, and said, yes, it is a painful cartoon, but it is a painful reality.
And a depiction of a situation, a reality, a set of facts, is not the same thing as making fun of them. There was no intention to make light of the situation. I was trying to point out - and I felt I did point out - the seriousness of the situation. ...
ZAHN: And here is one more thing.
The deputy communications director for the Disabled American Veterans says he was certainly not offended by the cartoon and adds that it has raised awareness of critically ill patients who need our attention.
The National Journal's Hotline site also looked at the JCS controversy in We Assume The Letter Was Delivered By An Acme Corp. Brand Mile-Long Accordion-Collapsible Hand. They quote several other blogs, whose links can be found at the Hotline entry. Hotline writes:
AMERICAblog's liberal John Aravosis describes the letter as a "threat": "I have no problem with citizens speaking out about political cartoons they find offensive ... But when the government does it, that's a whole other story that smacks of censorship, especially when that government is the Pentagon threatening you during wartime." So does Seeing the Forest's Dave Johnson: "This is THE MILITARY DIRECTLY THREATENING A NEWSPAPER on behalf of the Republican Party. This is WAYYYY beyond unprecedented. This is past "find a safe refuge in Canada" time. This is a serious WATCH YOUR BACKS!!!!" Atrios: "The central theme of the cartoon is that Rumsfeld is an asshole, which he is. They repeatedly deflect criticism of the civilian leadership by implying it's a criticism of the troops."
One of Aravosis' commenters (beep52) gives a good statement here of the significance of the JCS intervention in this case(Why the Joint Chiefs [ARE] criticizing cartoons matters 02/02/06):
The JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) have a right to voice their personal opinons, but doing so as a group on gov't letterhead takes it out of the personal realm. You better believe Chris Matthews would sh** if he got something like this (come to think of it, maybe he's already gotten his). I'm inclined to think they didn't want to go so far as censorship (they'd have handled that differently) but they certainly wanted their opinions to be backed by the power of their offices, which I'd read as intimidation.
What makes either or both of the above combustible is superheated environment in which we find ourselves. No photos of caskets at Dover. Denials of torture. Whitewashed investigations into incidents where brass are exhonerated while those beneath are charged and/or convicted. Claims that we have enough troops when we clearly don't. Claims we are winning when insurgent attacks were increasing. And on... until the incidents at the SOTU (State of the Union) last night.
There's a great line (which I'm going to butcher) in "Good Night, and Good Luck." when Murrow says something to the effect that "we have to do this story because the fear is in this room."
And it ain't fear of the terrorists.
No comments:
Post a Comment