Every now and then, I'll write something on this blog that causes much eye rolling (unusual because I have perfected the eye roll), and a big fat DELETE from Scott and Sarah. It is amazing, frankly, that anything I write on this thing goes up at all. (I'm sure you all feel the same way. SHHHHHH.) Well, a new book addresses cartoons whose material is deemed too racy, sensitive, or tasteless for your morning newspaper. You can see some of them on our website, and oddly... we had to kill one too (it was sexually explicit in a way that NPR listeners would not appreciate). The book is called Killed Cartoons: Casualties from the War on Free Expression and you can post questions for David Wallis, the book's editor, here.
Blog Of The Nation
At the risk of sounding prudish, I need to comment on your guest's assertion that you and other NPR editors need to dial down your censorship standards to match that of internet and other media standards. I, for one, appreciate that I can listen to NPR without the danger of hearing tasteless stories and language. Thank you, NPR, for giving me and others like me the CHOICE of a tasteful channel that is not sponsored by a religious organization.
In the mid 60's I was in junior high school, living in a small rural community in Texas. My parents were strong advocates of newspaper reading and since we had no television service, papers were my only source of information. You might imagine I didn't read all that many articles, but I did read all cartoons. This one still burns like fire in my mind's eye:
Two young men, in USMC dress uniform, standing in front of a movie theater box office which had XXX on the marquis. The caption read, "How come we are old enough to fight and die for our country but not old enough to drink or vote or see Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?
I think that might have been the last day I was a child. Had I not been ready, the words would have meant nothing to me. I cried then as I cry now for the spent humanity.
I only caught part of the broadcast today, but I disagree very strongly with the idea that any sort of self-censorship on the part of newspapers is part of a wider "attack on freedom of speech". As a former editor working for a major newspaper in Chicago, I was shocked when editorial cartoons commenting on the Wen Ho Lee (falsely accused of stealing nuclear secrets) story showed slant-eyed asians working at a fast-food restaurant handing out secret material from the drive thru window. I was equally embarassed when a cartoon depicting airport security showed stereotypical arabs with turbans, nefarious grins and knives in their hands... come 'on. There is a difference between free speech and irresponsible use of racial and ethnic sterotypes. There is good commentary and bad commentary. And if that commentary is artless and sophmoric, and inflammatory...publications have a right to kill it. The old excuse, "it's just a joke" just doesn't cut it anymore, and it never did. Being provocative doesn't mean you have license to be irresponsible.
however, censorship should exist to a certain degree, and not because of religious values, but rather because exposing younger children to explicit or profane content before they develop a reasonable sense of right and wrong may cause misunderstanding and other undesirable effects.
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.