H 30°, L 16° | Tomorrow: The University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign's independent student newspaper suspended its editor in chief and opinions editor Tuesday after publishing controversial cartoons last week.
The cartoons, caricaturizing the Prophet Muhammad, have sparked riots in the Middle East after the cartoons' original publication in a Danish newspaper.
While the cartoons have spurred negative responses from both community members and Muslim students at UI-UC, the suspension was not a result of the cartoons alone.
Rather, Illini editorial section members argued Editor in Chief Acton Gorton and Opinions Editor Chuck Prochaska had not properly consulted them about the cartoon.
"Acton and Chuck published these on their own, even though they didn't ask anyone," said Managing Editor and now-Interim Editor in Chief Shira Weissman. "There is definitely a way to do this … this was not the way."
On Monday, Illini staff members printed a formal apology with a dissenting opinion by Gorton and Prochaska.
"This decision was made by two people behind the backs of those who are being significantly affected by its fallout," the apology read.
Weissman said the cartoon has hurt the paper's relationship with the Muslim community, adding, "It's not something we want to do as a paper, we have to go to school and hear about this all day."
The piece consisted of an editorial written by Gorton and the original Danish cartoons.
"All across the nation, editors are gripped in fear of printing," Acton said in the editorial. "For fear of reaction."
But Weissman said the decision to print the cartoon and editorial hurt the newsroom.
"In order to run a newsroom, you have to have your staff's respect," Weissman said. "How can you provide a dialogue in the community when you can't provide it in your own newsroom?"
However, both Gorton and Prochaska insisted their motives were not for publicity or to offend the Muslim community.
"We don't feel that words can do these cartoons justice," Prochaska said. "People need to see the actual content to decide for themselves and see the root cause of what's happening."
According to Prochaska, he discussed the piece with Gorton Feb. 7 and met again with Gorton Feb. 8. The pair discussed the cartoons' printing, possible backlash and public relations for an hour in the afternoon.
Gorton and Prochaska argued there were other editors in the newsroom that did not object when the paper was sent to be printed.
According to Kiyoshi Martinez, night editor for the paper, both Gorton and Prochaska alerted him to the cartoon and editorial publication one day prior to printing.
"I was told [that] very few people knew about it. I was told to keep it quiet and ensure that it got printed, and if complications arose, to contact them immediately," Martinez said on his weblog, The Next Frontier.
Martinez said he regretted the staff, especially staff editors, was not made aware of all the content that would be in the newspaper, "especially something as controversial as [the] cartoons."
In a blog post, Martinez suggested the cartoon should have an intellectual and informative approach, feature Point/Counter-point columns from staff members, and historical, social, and religious context of why people find the cartoons offensive.
"As you can see, parts of my advice were taken, parts were ignored," Martinez wrote. "I never questioned the decision to print the cartoons, as I believed it was part of The Daily Illini's duty to do so."
In the coming weeks, the newspaper will conduct a formal investigation into Prochaska and Gorton's actions. However, Gorton argues the high-ranking members of the Illini conducting the investigation have turned their backs on the two.
IP hash: a1d18746
its not about morals….it comes down to black and white…the right of FREEDOM of speech
IP hash: a093f96b
An example of cowardice at the highest levels of so-called ‘liberal’ education. Liberals complain all the time about losing our freedoms in the wake of terror - the government is not the only one capable of taking our freedoms away.
IP hash: 745cf098
Sad to see the press self censor but maybe they were scared.
IP hash: 41c2c1fa
When will you get it? It IS about morals. And if people don’t like the way a newspaper, one that represents them, mind you, why is it a problem to protest what they did? I don’t want my newspapers’ editors to publish bigotry. ESPECIALLY when there is no reason to publish it. And I will speak out against it.
IP hash: adc882dd
“Freedom of speech” is about a lot more than just a lack of censorship in the press. Free expression, even through the controversial cartoons, represents the only way for society to deal with these kinds of issues. If prejudice is censored, the prejudice doesn’t go away. If it’s published, the whole world is given the chance to talk about it and confront it, and to decide for themselves what these cartoons mean for themselves.
IP hash: 8a52fe6d
Should the photos of Abu Ghraib be censored? I don’t think they should. To censor is to cover up. Let the public decide.
IP hash: f68f8039
Thats right, Adam, you have the right to speak out against it…the same right that they have to publish it. They should not be suspended because you and others disagree with the pictures. Silly hypocrite. The reason to publish it is to discuss it. Americans have the right to understand and appreciate why Muslims are burning our flag again and still.
IP hash: 41c2c1fa
All that has happened from these cartoons being published has been a whole lot of bigots proclaiming their hatred for Islam. God willing it will give us a chance to teach about who the Prophet really was, but that doesn’t excuse the Herald. The cartoons themselves did not need to be published. They are all over the internet. all that needed to be done was, especially when this was newsworthy more than a month ago, to have articles written about the topic, describing the cartoons, correctly framing the situation. It isn’t even an issue of covering up prejudice, it’s an issue of making a statement that prejudice is acceptable and, moreover, commendable, admirable.
And if the real aim here had been to encourage us to talk about prejudice, perhaps the Editorial board could have come to the Muslim community on campus and asked how they felt about the cartoons being published. There was no attempt at dealing with prejudice here, only an attempt to perpetuate it. And just as free speech and a free press helps us deal with issues, the press also can serve a huge role in making those issues worse.
IP hash: e43561cf
Maybe it was exactly what they said it was — there is a certain protocol for making editorial decisions like this and the two editors completely bypassed that process because they thought they might not get their way.
IP hash: 41c2c1fa
“Silly hypocrite”
not quite. because i’ve said multiple times that they had a legal right to publish them. free speech isnt in question here.
IP hash: 8a7636e8
I think every editor that DOESN’T print those cartoon should be suspended. This is a huge news story. Informed citizens should be able to view the cartoons and make up their own minds. I’ve seen the cartoons, and my reaction was “people are really burning down buildings and dying over THIS?!?!” People have a right to decide for themselves if the protesters are justified in their outrage ir whether they are a bunch of thin-skinned fanatics. So their religion doesn’t permit them to depict Mohammed. Tough shit. My religion does. I don’t have to observe your religious taboos and you don’t have to observe mine. People are dying over a fucking CARTOON. That is nuts.
IP hash: ca211eec
has anyone (in the U.S.) actually seen this cartoon. I would like to view it before forming an opinion on the subject. Where can this cartoon be viewed?