Lawrence Pintak, dean of the Washington State University’s Edward R. Murrow College of Communication, has written a controversial guide for journalists on how to cover stories without insulting Muslims. “Islam for Journalists” is an effort to educate reporters on the sensitivities of Muslims to avoid triggering protests or violence. Pintak writes that “Across the Muslim world extremists are wielding their swords with grisly effect, but the pen . . . can be just as lethal.” That line captures the controversy because it seems to suggest that reporters are a cause of violence when they fail to adhere to the demand of religious values or orthodoxy in their publications.
Pintak explains the sensitivity of Muslims toward any references or images of Muhammad. He notes that such depictions are prohibited under Islam and that journalists can still do their jobs without tripping such wires. “Many Muslim journalists simply couldn’t understand why Western news organizations would republish the offensive images just because [of a legal right]. Journalism is not supposed to be a weapon [it is meant] to inform, not inflame.”
However, many journalists do not view publishing such images as wielding a “weapon” and do not understand why they should accommodate religious sensibilities as a condition for writing. After all, there are many religions but there are not publications one “Catholicism for Journalists” or “Buddhism for Journalists” advocating rules of avoidance. Indeed, other religions routinely complain of insulting images or language but do not “wield[]their swords with grisly effect.” The concern is that such accommodation only reinforces the demands of radical Muslims and calls for a form of self-censorship from reporters.
Muhammad remains a historical figure with obvious contemporary importance to politics and society. Yet, the book warns against writings that might be viewed as imitating or insulting him because “although he is not divine, he is considered ‘the Perfect Man.” That is already well-understood by any who have seen the murders and riots unleashed by the publication of simple cartoons. The question is whether Pintak would have been better off using his considerable knowledge of this area to write “Journalism for Muslims” to give better understanding of the value of free speech and pluralism. Such a guide would explain why it is outrageous to arrest in Egypt satirist Bassem Youssef (sometimes been called Egypt’s Jon Stewart) for blasphemy because he makes fun of religion or the arrest of atheist bloggers in various countries for simply saying that they do not believe in God.
We have previously discussed the deepening rife between Islam and free speech in prosecutions for blasphemy and riots over publications. The problem is not solved by limiting free speech, even voluntarily. That represents a yielding to orthodoxy — a concession that would lead to similar demands from other religions. The result of such concessions was vividly shown by the controversy involving Yale University Press. 
In a disgraceful act of self-censorship, Yale University Press published Jytte Klausen’s “The Cartoons That Shook the World” (on the cartoons that led to riots and over 200 killed in protests worldwide). However, Yale removed the the 12 cartoons from the book so not to insult Muslims. Thus, you could read the book but not actually see the cartoons themselves. It was a decision by Yale University Press that is still discussed as anti-intellectual and cowardly in academic circles. It was the triumph of the extremists who murdered 200 people.
My concern about the “how to” guide is that it is part of a quiet move in the West to accommodate religious demands while publicly declaring fealty to free speech. For many years, I have been writing about the threat of an international blasphemy standard and the continuing rollback on free speech in the West. For recent columns, click here and here and here.
Much of this writing has focused on the effort of the Obama Administration to reach an accommodation with allies like Egypt to develop a standard for criminalizing anti-religious speech. We have been following the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard.
I understand Pintak’s laudable purpose and I do not question his journalistic credentials which are considerable. He has long covered Islam and the Middle East. He holds a Ph.D., Islamic Studies from the University of Wales and is founding dean of The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University. He has spent decades covering the Muslim world and served as director of the Kamal Adham Center for Journalism Training and Research at The American University in Cairo. He was also the CBS News Middle East correspondent.
Moreover, there are often small accommodations that are made to religions in visiting sites or interviewing religious figures. I also think that it is useful for Pintak to educate journalists on the religion, though I expect many already know the basic tenets from prior stories and scandals. However, this guide seems to suggest greater accommodation in avoiding images or references deemed blasphemous by a religion. Cartoonists have a right to depict Mohammad as they routinely depict Jesus, Moses, and other figures. Muslims do not have read such material but they cannot seriously expect every to stop writing or depicting elements of their religion to protect their sensibilities. That shows not a lack of understanding by the cartoonists of religion but a continued lack of understanding of journalism (and free speech) by religious advocates in my view.
What do you think?
If you are going for best contents like myself, simply visit this website every day as
it presents quality contents, thanks
Thank you, I have just been looking for information approximately
this subject for ages and yours is the best I’ve came upon so far.
However, what about the conclusion? Are you positive
about the supply?
Heya just wanted to give you a quick heads up and let you know a few of the pictures aren’t loading correctly.
I’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different web browsers and both show the same outcome.
What’s up, just wanted to tell you, I liked this article.
It was helpful. Keep on posting!
I’m really loving the theme/design of your site. Do you ever run into any web browser compatibility problems? A number of my blog audience have complained about my site not operating correctly in Explorer but looks great in Safari. Do you have any tips to help fix this issue?
Here is my site – web page ( Eloisa – http://www.faceparty.com/member/blog.aspx?pid=9019796 )
I relish, cause I found exactly what I used to be taking a look for. You have ended my 4 day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye
Here is my site … web site ( Noelia – http://www.gaiaonline.com/journal/?mode=view&post_id=34898405&u=37166303 )
I like the valuable info you supply on your articles.
I will bookmark your blog and take a look at again right here frequently.
I’m fairly certain I will learn many new stuff proper
right here! Good luck for the following!
LEO’s received some hip sensitivity training: NYPD Finally Shuts Down Controversial Surveillance Program That Spied On Muslims
“In response to Frazier Glenn Miller’s arrest in the murder of 3 people at Jewish targets the other day, Peter Bergen reminds that white supremacist terrorists have been more dangerous in recent years than Islamic terrorists.” – Emptywheel
There are some here who could write that book for “white supremacists” (a.k.a. supremeexceptionalists).
Does this blog allow the posting of such cartoons?
Ah…. So that’s why the professor seems to get emails about some being offended…..
There is no right to not be offended. It’s called the Don Rickles Rule.
The website below attempts shine a light on the global Jihad and raise awareness to the threat facing us.
http://sheikyermami.com/
While I believe all religion to be based on dogma, I hate to offend dogs when using that phrase. Dogpoop is better. But if I offend any religious person who believes in some faith based religion then they can be content that I will not be attending heaven with them when I die and they die. Of all the religious groups the Muslims are the most violent and goof ball. A journalist is smart to learn about any topic that he discusses or reports on It does not make sense for a New York Times reporter to show up at the Church to see the flock on a Saturday. They meet to be fleeced on Sunday. I don’t know when the Muslims meet but they pray and bow twice a day. The best phrase I would tell a journalist is: You cant cure an idgit. That is a swamp east Missoura phrase.
Great posts, Karen! Completely agree with you.
Veronica – any criticism of Islam or the prophet . . . at all . . . is viewed as blasphemy in Islamic nations. So when someone criticizes the treatment of women and girl children under Shar’ia law, for example, passions are enflamed and it becomes very difficult to have a global discussion.
There has been a rise of cases in Egypt where Muslims bring false charges against Christians, claiming that they insulted the Prophet. The statement alone is enough to get a victim incarcerated. It has become quite popular for Muslims to employ against Christian neighbors they dislike. There was a recent scandal where the victim was a girl with Down’s syndrome.
Frankly – I encourage you to GOOGLE Christians, Catholics, and Jews. You will find that we are not preferentially insensitive to non-Western religions. Christianity and Judaism take plenty of pot shots. (Do you recall the art exhibit with a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine?) And, technically, the birthplace of the 3 major faiths – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is the Middle East, not the West.
Very well put, Professor Turley!
We can certainly educate ourselves on how to follow local laws when visiting other nations, but we should not erode the bedrock of protected free speech to accommodate Islamist extremists. There are people who moved here to escape that kind of totalitarianism, and yet here we are incorporating it ourselves. Too often we give special concessions to Islam that we do not afford to any other faith, merely because it is culturally required in all Muslim nations to become violent when offended. I cannot think of a single Muslim nation in which religious offense does not lead to violence.
We clearly, and rightly, condemn the Catholic Church for its entrenched coverup of pedophiles. It is not anti-Catholic to remark that they need to clean up their act. In the same vein, it is not anti-Islamic to observe that they, too, have issues they should address. And yet most journalists trip over themselves to avoid criticizing Muslims who commit violence in the name of their religion. This brings to mind the latest scandal in which critics have tried to block the movie Honor Diaries.
Journalists in the US should feel free to engage in free speech, no matter the topic. If violence breaks out here, it should be firmly quashed. If it breaks out abroad, the responsibility is on the perpetrators, not on what angered them. It’s like a wife beater claiming the defense, “She made me mad, so I beat her! It’s her fault for angering me!”
Interesting how comments about President Obama always seem to make their way into items that don’t deal directly with him, as Paul Schulte and the eponymous “anonymously yours” managed to do here.
I realize the company is Hispanic, but there is a “Jesus and Mohammed Tree Service” in my town. I always mean to take a picture of one of their trucks, but I never have my camera at the right time. As far as I know, no one has thrown stones at their trucks nor the occupants within. Then again, I know of no terrorist cell in my town. Of course, I haven’t heard anyone blame the business on Obama either, but we’re pretty liberal.