Why Is One Form Of Criticism Acceptable In A Newspaper And Another Not?
While I'm not sure that I agree with what I'm about to say, I'd like to say it anyway. Some forms of criticism in a newspaper are acceptable while others are not because there are "no-no" words that should not be used in society. These words are off-limits because of how offensive they are. The employee that was dismissed by this local newspaper used a "no-no" word. He was dismissed, yet the newspaper still prints editorial cartoons that can also be viewed as offensive.
Let’s Call A Duck A Duck
Slander is slander. Mockery is mockery. Criticism is criticism. I don't agree with punishing one man for his form of criticism and allowing another's form of criticism to continue unscathed. It should be balanced and fair.
Do We Really Have ‘Freedom Of Speech’?
Free speech is a funny concept. In America, we have freedom of speech, but within the confines of the law. That in itself is an oxymoron: freedom, confinement. We are allowed to state our opinion publicly, but there can be consequences in doing so. I agree with this fact. If someone is threatening someone else publicly, that person should be held accountable and punished. Again, though, let's call a duck a duck. Maybe an asterisk is needed beside the phrase 'freedom of speech' in The Bill of Rights, noting that freedom of speech is not immune to the confines of the law.
Final Thoughts
In the instance of the local newspaper mentioned above, it seems to be a case of a person using a societal "no-no" word, thus putting pressure on the newspaper to apologize and dismiss the person guilty of using the word. This is unbalanced and unfair. Newspapers need to play a role in defining what words are healthy and acceptable forms of criticism and what words are not. If all public criticism can be offensive, then should it not all be under the same accountability?
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Let's Call A Duck A Duck (Free Speech)
An offensive comment was recently posted on a local newspaper's blog by an employee of that paper. The comment, a racial slur, was posted by a man of color, interestingly enough. The newspaper made a public apology and dismissed the employee immediately. While I commend the newspaper for the apology, it caused me to question other areas of a newspaper. A racial slur is unacceptable because it is offensive and shows intolerance. I believe, then, that editorial cartoons also need to be examined because they display these same qualities. At the heart of my blog is this: why is it acceptable to mock our government leaders in an editorial cartoon, but unacceptable to use certain words against them in a column or online blog? Both forms of free speech can be offensive, especially to the person at which the cartoon or column is aimed. While I agree with the local newspaper's position, I do question the ethics behind their position.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Well, while I see what you're saying, you're failing to take into account what the *law* says about stuff like this.
I don't see political cartoons using dirty language or ethnic slurs, first off. But even if they did, there are different rules that apply to public officials.
To summarize, public officials are not as "protected" from what most people would see as ridicule as the average citizen is. The rationale is that public officials put themselves out there and should be able to take the criticism and, yes, mockery from media and bloggers and the like.
An average citizen is more protected because their privacy is more respected. And you don't usually see the average citizen featured as the subject of a political cartoon.
What I see as the biggest problem in your post is that a newspaper employee used an ethnic slur in the comments section of a blog. Any reporter, be it a rookie or a veteran, should know better. Whether it's the President of the U.S.A. or your next-door neighbor, it's not OK for a reporter to sling opinions around or to call names.
Post a Comment