Is cartoon uproar about defending free speech or bad journalism?

The Jakarta Post
February 13, 2006
Endy M. Bayuni, Jakarta

Here is a question we should pose to the editors of the Jyllands-Posten in Denmark: If someone was to draw satirical cartoons depicting Queen Margrethe II in various compromising sexual positions, would they publish them?
I am not familiar with Denmark's laws, but I know that Britain has a law that bans insulting the queen. In Britain, also a bastion of free press, the press has largely observed the law.
But even if there is no such law in Denmark, I doubt that the Danish press would publish such cartoons, not because it is afraid of the largely docile royalty or fears public recriminations, but largely out of respect.
And because it knows that publishing such poor-taste cartoons is simply bad journalism.
But if the Danish editors were consistent with their belief in freedom of the press, and the right to print, the right to insult and everything else that comes with the package, then perhaps they should publish such cartoons of their own queen. That would certainly be consistent with their decision to publish, and then defend, the satirical cartoons of Prophet Muhammad in September: In the name of free speech.
If they refuse (as they likely would), they are applying a double standard on the question of free speech: they are prepared to insult one section (minority) of their own community, but not the larger community; they are prepared to insult the holy symbol of a major world religion, but not the symbol of their own state.
Given this double standard, can upholding freedom of the press still be used in defense of their decision to publish the cartoons?
Sadly, some European editors also think so, and they have reprinted the offensive cartoons just to make a point about free speech.
They are not defending free speech, because we know that such freedom in Europe was never in any danger, even in the wake of the massive protests in the Islamic world.
They are essentially defending bad journalism. And that is bad news for the profession and for the industry.
Bad journalism has now been given dignity and respect because the cartoons have created a debate about freedom of the press and its limitations, and about Western and Islamic values and civilizations, as well as the violent reactions in the Islamic world and the condemnation by the West.
Here in Indonesia, the issue has also unnecessarily strained relations between Indonesia and Denmark, with Copenhagen citing security concerns in recalling all its diplomats from Jakarta.
It has all come to this when the issue should have been contained to a debate over freedom of the press and what constitutes bad journalism.

Editors, even in countries with the freest press laws, are faced with difficult decisions every day on what they should publish. The limits to their freedom are determined, if not by laws, then by questions of propriety, ethics and taste.
From time to time, editors make mistakes. They make bad judgment calls and run articles, photos and cartoons that are seen to be in poor taste.
Rather than defending their decisions, the Danish editors would have done a great service to their colleagues in the journalistic profession worldwide if they were to admit that it was poor judgment on their part to have published the cartoons in the first place.
Editors around the world seldom openly admit mistakes because that would reflect on their judgment and affect their credibility. But this is the one time that the editors should be honest enough to come forward and own up to their mistakes.
Please spare us from more debate about free press, thereby dragging other publications into the effort to defend your poor judgments.
The only alternative explanation to bad judgment is that the Danish editors made a conscious decision to provoke the Muslim community. That makes them politicians rather than journalists. If it were the case, they should resign from the profession and become politicians for one of the neo-Nazi political parties in Denmark.
Firing them from their jobs would be too good for them. It would only make press-freedom martyrs out of them in the same way that the 9/11 suicide bombers have become fallen heroes for some in the Muslim world. Just as the hijackers have given a bad name to the religion, these editors have besmirched the name of journalism.
Editors in Britain and the United States, two nations that have been among the staunchest defenders of free press, have shown much greater common sense than their counterparts in continental Europe by deciding not to reprint the cartoons.
Tellingly, they have noted that freedom of the press guarantees the right to print as well as the right not to print. They decided not to reprint them because, they said, the cartoons were in poor taste. Their decision has nothing to do with the fear of a backlash from the Muslim minority in their countries.
No self-respecting editors anywhere around the world would publish the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, just as they would also refuse to run offensive cartoons of Queen Margrethe II or any other leaders who people hold in high esteem. It comes down to the matter of editorial judgment and decisions, and has nothing to do with having the freedom to do so or not.
In a free press country, it is inevitable that we get both the good press as well as the worst kind of press. The challenge for those of us who are really concerned about defending this freedom is to recognize the good from the bad. Let's defend the free press, but do not delude ourselves by blindly coming to the defense of bad journalism in the name of free press.