City
The Strand Steps in It
The editors of The Strand, Victoria College's student newspaper debated amongst themselves for a week as to how to illustrate an editorial about the balance between the media's duty to inform and its attempts to avoid offence. On one hand, they recognized that as journalists, they had a duty to the public to inform, and to provide all relevant details of an issue - of which the pictures surely were. On the other hand, they knew that the pictures had the ability to offend, and were hesitant about bringing the controversy too close to home. In the end, they decided not to publish the Danish pictures which, as Nick Ragaz, Managing Editor of The Strand, points out, weren't even drawn by UofT students.
A week earlier The Varsity had passed a cartoon off to The Strand that they had passed on themselves. The picture (which I can't show you, but which is available along with the editorial here, drawn by a student, seemed to the Strand to encompass the message of understanding that they were trying to project. It was a picture of two men, on a theme park ride entering a 'tunnel of tolerance', kissing. One man, who's face was partially obscured was a hippy sort, with long hair, a beard, and robes. The other, who was only drawn from behind - obscuring his face entirely - wore a turban and had a Star and Crescent tattoo. The editorial board realised that some people might be offended by it, but it passed their criteria of not being violent, liebellous, hateful, or counter-factual, and decided it would be okay. Although they have the support of the Victoria College administration and student governenment, others on campus have not been as understanding.
After the publication, the Muslim Students' Association at UofT began a letter writing campaign, which Nick Ragaz expected and was prepared for - although not in the volume, 60 letters and counting, that resulted. The Strand plans to publish many of the letters - both pro and con - along with a response from the Muslim Student's Association in their next issue.
Perhaps surprisingly, the most inflamatory response has come from a press release by the UofT's Student Activity Council. Decrying the cartoon as an "act of hate", the Council called for the removal of the issue from both The Strand's website and from its distribution points across Campus - a demand that The Strand's editorial board - and the Victoria College administration - refuse to accede to. That an organization such as SAC, which claims to represent all students and support freedom of speech, would make an inflamatory call for such post-facto censorship is amazing in itself. That it would make such a call without even consulting with the editorial board of the offending newspaper - which is the case here; SAC president Paul Bretscher only letting The Strand know of their views on the day of the press release - is a step beyond what anybody, including Ragaz, expected.
When I asked Ragaz if, knowing the immediate outcome, he would still push for publication, he told me in no uncertain terms that yes, he would. He believes that the cartoon controversy will still prove beneficial, telling me "I argued strongly in favour of publication and I think the outcome, ultimately, will be the dialogue and mutual understanding and engagement that is the best possible outcome of this situation. The Muslim Students' Association... ...which plans to organize an educational initiative about Islam in response, is certainly acting to further that goal and we're grateful for that."
Discussion
3 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
I'm David Topping, one of the editors on The Strand, and I have BlogTO on Bloglines - imagine my surprise at seeing this posted here...the media circus has just begun to die down. Nick's handled this all really well, as have Aine and Karen (the Strand's co-editors-in-chiefs).
I wanted to make it clear that if any readers have any additional questions or comments they can reach me, either by posting here (which I might not check too regularly) or via my e-mail. I'm sure Nick would be happy to answer too.
The issue with the pictures in Jyllands-Posten was primarily that it is forbidden in the Islamic faith for Muhammed to be visually depicted. (While I recently read a rebuttal of this, claiming that Muhammed was frequently depicted by artists and citing a statue of Muhammed made by an Islamic artist as defense, I return that a statue made by an artist within the faith must be substantially more palatable than a caricature by a stranger to it). The Strand surely knew this when it published the pictures- and when it decided not the publish those from Jyllands-Posten.
As O'Hare wrote, "Publishing these cartoons [would seem]to do little more than fan the flames of already-existing controversy." Didn't they understand that publishing a NEW picture, also depicting the figure, would just feed into the turmoil?
O'Hare also wrote that a student newspaper's responsibility is to provide information and promote discussion. But her editorial (while, again, well written) provides no information on the picture, nor the controversy that lies behind it. How can The Strand expect people to see the picture as a device meant to provoke thought and promote discussion when it's accompanied by no information nor context? At worst, the picture just looks like a tool meant to incite controversy to bring attention to The Strand- not necesarily a label I think they want to be associated with.
The motivation behind it all is supporting and promoting freedom of speech- a legitimate cause, but not necessarily a proper defense here. I have the right to say anything I want. But that doesn't make it right to say anything I want. This picture ultimately just feeds into an existing controversy, contributing to the hurt feelings of a large ethnic/religious group, and while I doubt that was The Strand's intention, I believe it should have factored more into their decision making process that ultimately led to them printing this picture. This isn't about rights, ultimately. This is about tact.
I am a proud Victoria student, and I expect great things from my peers. I believe unequivocally that the authors of The Strand are better than this. I sincerely hope that, in the future, they think more carefully about their actions.