8

Recently, some news organisations (Le Monde linking to this blog in the Washington Post) mention that New York Times, AP, CNN, MSNBC, The Telegraph (and apparently other news groups) have "shunned" images that contained certain depictions that could have been construed as offensive by some followers of a certain religion.

The same WP blog presented the New York Times' explanation:

Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.

Does the New York Time have this explicit policy?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
user3371583
  • 243
  • 1
  • 4
  • 1
    I'm trying to understand the question. It seems to be as simple as "Does the Times have a policy, as quoted by [Buzzfeed](http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/some-outlets-are-censoring-charlie-hebdos-satirical-cartoons#.reDLlr1wX4) citing a spokesperson, in line with this quote: [...]? – Oddthinking Jan 08 '15 at 11:00
  • 1
    There's probably a good question here but it needs work. "newsworthy material" will never work, as it's evidently subjective (if they don't publish it, they feel it's not newsworthy, literally). The specific list of which news groups needs to be specified. "L'Avvenire", newspaper of the Catholic Church, will obviously censor whatever offends their Catholic sensibility, but what does this prove? Given the delicate nature of this topic, I'm putting this on hold until it's fixed. – Sklivvz Jan 08 '15 at 11:10
  • @Oddthinking the quote comes from a blog on the opinion section of the Washington Post. The Buzzfeed just gave examples but I didnt check their veracity (and a lot seem from Twitter). – user3371583 Jan 08 '15 at 11:15
  • Yes, in an unusual inversion of authoritativeness, Le Monde cited the Washington Post. The Washington Post cited Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed cited an anonymous Times spokesperson they contacted. – Oddthinking Jan 08 '15 at 11:21
  • @Sklivvz I am trying to determine if the quote can be backed by something. If newspapers have a deontology leaflet or something that could either rebuff or confirm the quote that was given. Any corporation has guidelines, dos and don'ts. The drawings were described but not posted, so they did have an element of newsworthy-ness. I am fully open to suggestions on how to modify it. I am NOT willing to start a flame war. I fully want to avoid the topic of discussing the validity of such a policy. – user3371583 Jan 08 '15 at 11:37
  • I understand and I believe you. That's why I'm helping you do so by pointing out what needs fixing and preventing a flamewar to start in the first place. :-) – Sklivvz Jan 08 '15 at 11:46
  • @Sklivvz I nuanced the question to the best of my limited English skills. I would have used "newsworthish" in the title but it sounds horrible and I think the text fully explains the context. I changed the body of the question explicitly asking for documents on how they deal with religious sensibility. I think that's fair enough. Oh and I do mention the "cited news groups" on my first draft (those being NYT, CNN, AP, the Telegraph, MSNBC). If any further modifications need to brought, please tell me. EDIT: where's my hearty "Welcome to Skeptics Stack?" :S – user3371583 Jan 08 '15 at 12:49
  • @user3371583 I've tried to fix your question, if you don't like it feel free to revert. – Sklivvz Jan 08 '15 at 13:16
  • [*embarassed*] You are, of course, [welcome to Skeptics!](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users) You didn't get one from me before, because you didn't trigger a templated response, which includes that text. – Oddthinking Jan 08 '15 at 13:17
  • 1
    @Sklivvz I'm okay with the modifications. If it'll release the question, even better. I hope it will still remain a noteworthy item. – user3371583 Jan 08 '15 at 13:31
  • I'm still not completely clear what you are skeptical about. The passage you quote says clearly that the New York Times does have such a policy, and Wemple, the author of the blog, says the quote is from a statement made to him by the Times itself. Are you suggesting that Wemple may be lying (or misled, confused, etc) about the source of the quote? Or that the Times is lying about that being their policy? – Nate Eldredge Jan 08 '15 at 16:41
  • 6
    I'm just confused here as to what really is being asked: the answer seems to be a clear "yes", because they did in fact refuse to publish the material and they appear to have clearly said why (as reported and commentated on by many sources). Are you asking if that's why they *really* did it (and not because they were afraid of a violent attack)? Or are you asking if they've behave similarly in the past, stated this policy explicitly somewhere, or published this editorial guideline anywhere? It seems to just be a judgement call by the editor, so I'm really not sure what's at question. – BrianH Jan 08 '15 at 16:42
  • In other words, if an on-the-record statement to a mainstream journalist doesn't satisfy you, what will? (That's not a rhetorical question.) – Nate Eldredge Jan 08 '15 at 16:43
  • @BrianDHall The original question was more explicit. Yes I am wondering if they have a clear written guideline somewhere related to religious sensibilities and how to deal in those situations. – user3371583 Jan 08 '15 at 17:00
  • @NateEldredge The comment was found on a blog on WP. Id wish to obtain a (hopefully) somewhat official stance from NYTimes on the matter. A name, something on their website. The question was kinda different before modifications. If a modification of the question is warranted please tell me. – user3371583 Jan 08 '15 at 17:05
  • Now that this topic (about the NYT) has been in the news, perhaps there will or won't be a retraction or clarification (e.g. an editorial) on that subject in the NYT in the next few days. – ChrisW Jan 09 '15 at 01:21
  • Please note that your quote says something different from what you claim in the title. The quote is about _deliberately intended_ offence. To give an example: Any depiction of a human may be offensive to a Moslem, but most images appearing in the media do not have offending Moslems as their goal. Also, note the *usually* in the title. All in all, I would say it is usual practice for most newspapers not to publish things just to offend someone. – P_S Jan 14 '15 at 16:57
  • @P_S After debating what "newsworthy" means, I wish to not engage into one that deals with the differences between the title and the quote. We have to agree that there are strong arguments on both sides of a debate, but it is not the focus of the question. The question deals precisely with proof about this *usual practice* that you mention. You also do not prove that it is a majority of newspapers (or name them), you do not cite what the *things* are and you do not mention who that *someone* is (public figures, groups of people, companies, etc). – user3371583 Jan 15 '15 at 22:18
  • @user3371583 You're right, I did not provide anything concrete, but I think this is acceptable in a comment. My intent was only to point out that the title does not accurately reflect your question, and I think something like "Is there a general New York Times policy not to publish material that is deliberately offensive" would be more appropriate. – P_S Jan 16 '15 at 14:19
  • @P_S but then you'd have to prove the authors deliberately did it to offend. It may have very well been an act of satire. _A Modest Proposal_ offended people that disagree with canibalism, just like Colbert's _Ching Chong Ding Dong_ offended Asians. No doubt the respective authors realised that offence can be taken but the main part of their artwork was to draw attention to another problem. So now we're left policing works of art and what their "true" intent was. And the result is an impossibly long title that I'll present in the next comment. – user3371583 Jan 16 '15 at 15:48
  • @P_S _Does the New York Times refuse to publish material that its editors deem deliberately offensive, even though the creators of said material are evasive or claim it is satire and its true intent is not to offend but to draw attention to a different cause, attention that would not be given if everybody on God's green Earth agreed with the material?_ At least with 1/4th of this comment I'm sure you can agree, but even 1/4th is too long. That's why there's a body to every question...to expand and give nuances to the question. **tl;dr**: the body of the question goes with the title – user3371583 Jan 16 '15 at 15:52
  • @user3371583 I see your point, but deliberate (not accidental) offence is what your question and the accepted answer are about, very explicitly. Also, I do not think *Does the New York Times refuse to publish material that it deems deliberately offensive?* is too long (it is exactly as long as the current title). The reason I dwell on this point is that otherwise, the Q&A seem to present the NYT in the good old "[Christmas is banned](http://www.thatsnonsense.com/blog/christmas-is-banned-it-offends-minorities-debunked/)" way, which I think is inappropriate. But - I promise to let it go now :) – P_S Jan 16 '15 at 18:05
  • @P_S I do **not** mention the word _accidental_ in my title, and the body contains the word _deliberate_. If you add _your_ impression during reading, a re-reading is recommended. I believe your suggested title is _significantly_ different, so I suggest you ask it. Without fail, I'll do a P_S impression and ask: Not all offenses are similar! Blasphemy is legal while racism is not. Isn't the question too large? See how it can become quickly **tiresome**. I'm starting to believe people spent less time per word writing the Magna. – user3371583 Jan 16 '15 at 21:14

1 Answers1

8

The reason why the OP posted was, "Since I could not find the source of this statement", and the OP only wants to know whether the policy exists.

Here's a quote from a more recent article, published by the New York Times:

Charlie Hebdo’s Defiant Muhammad Cover Fuels Debate on Free Speech

Some American newspapers, including The New York Times, did not reproduce the Charlie Hedbo cartoons that mocked Islam. The Times called the decision an editorial judgment that reflected its standards for content that is deemed offensive and gratuitous.

The decision drew criticism from some free-speech advocates who called it cowardly in the face of a terrorist attack, which the newspaper disputed.

“Actually, we have republished some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, including a caricature of the head of ISIS, as well as some political cartoons,” Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The Times, said in a statement. “We do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities.”

This is exactly the same text as quoted in the OP; what makes this a legitimate answer is:

  • It's attributed (i.e. to "Dean Baquet, executive editor of The Times")
  • It's published on the web site of the NY Times itself (instead of in a blog of the Washington Post)
Community
  • 1
ChrisW
  • 26,552
  • 5
  • 108
  • 141
  • Thank you very much. Did you manage to find the first NYT article that contains this quote. Is it the one from the 13th of January? A quick search on NYT's site reveals one of their blogs that links to Buzzfeed(dated the 8th of Jan). Im just curious because I'm wondering if it's my fault for not finding the quote. – user3371583 Jan 15 '15 at 22:26
  • The [Washington Post blog](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/08/washington-post-opinions-section-publishes-controversial-charlie-hebdo-cartoon/) says, "[...] That’s from an official statement provided to the Erik Wemple Blog": so I *guess* there wasn't a "first NYT article", and instead Erik Wemple contacted the NYT and asked them for a comment an official statement. – ChrisW Jan 15 '15 at 22:31
  • 1
    I'm very happy with your answer because it links to NYT and to a name. Which was my main focus. The fact that the same phrase appears in different places might indicate that it is part of some written internal guideline and not a phrase spoken on the fly. Thank you for your time and concern. – user3371583 Jan 15 '15 at 22:35
  • Maybe it is a written internal guideline, but the reason why they match is because the article is reporting (i.e. quoting) the statement, so it could (theoretically) also just be repeating (i.e. quoting) a phrase spoken on the fly. As 'executive editor' ([the highest-ranking position in the paper's newsroom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Baquet)) it is presumably Dean Baquet's prerogative to define/specify/communicate editorial policy. – ChrisW Jan 15 '15 at 22:43