Without YouTube or LiveLeak, the world might only hear or read about the disturbing new anti-Muslim, Dutch video, "Fitna."

Now just about anyone can see the 17-minute movie that some consider more inflammatory in Muslim-majority countries than the Danish cartoons that sparked riots in 2006.

In the pre-Internet world, the so-called mainstream media played the role of gatekeeper: determining with authority what the public did and did not need to know. Much more editorial censorship existed. But now the public can get any information it wants through the Web — with or without the news media's guidance. Everything — in good taste or bad — gets out in cyberspace.

One issue that arises for NPR is whether the network should provide direct links to potentially offensive material it reports on.

And that includes the video, "Fitna," which is Arabic for "conflict" or "dissension." In today's world, it is more difficult to access an article in the Wall Street Journal than to watch "Fitna," which claims that Islam is as serious a threat to western civilization as fascism once was. Released on March 27, it's available through a few hoops on YouTube, LiveLeak and Google.

On March 28, Morning Edition ran a two-minute piece on the outpouring of anger in the Netherlands over "Fitna," which the Dutch government urged filmmaker and legislator Geert Wilders not to show. "There's a right of religion, and there's a right to the freedom of speech," Christiaan Kroner, Dutch ambassador to the U.S. said on NPR, "there's no such thing as the right to insult people."

Wilders claims the Quran is similar to Hitler's Mein Kampf and is really a how-to guide for terrorists. The short film begins with a cartoon of a Muslim with a ticking bomb tucked into his turban. Throughout an array of still images of terrorist attacks are Quran verses saying such things as Allah is "happy" when non-Muslims are killed.

The "Fitna" controversy is similar to the 2006 wave of violent protests that erupted after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that many Muslims considered blasphemous.

Clearly, news organizations are obligated to do stories on both these controversies. NPR covered the "Fitna" release with an interview, and All Things Considered did an earlier five-minute piece on March 9 about how the Netherlands was worried about the film's impact. Even before the video appeared, 15,000 people protested in Afghanistan.

But in doing such stories, is NPR then obligated to make it easy to find "Fitna" or the cartoons by providing a direct link? Or is it enough to describe them and let the listener find them on the Web?

"Should media outlets showcase the work or not?" asked Michel Martin, host of NPR's Tell Me More on April 2. "Is there a greater responsibility to circulate controversial ideas even if they give offense? Or to protect known sensibilities as a gesture of respect in a diverse society?"

NPR decided in 2006 to not run the cartoons because they were "highly offensive to millions of Muslims," said former NPR vice president for news, Bill Marimow. "In this case, I believe that our audience can, though our reports —on radio and the Web — get a very detailed sense of what's depicted in the cartoon. By not posting it on the Web, we demonstrate a respect for deeply held religious beliefs."

Hundreds wrote to the former ombudsman about NPR's refusal to post the cartoon. About 70 percent said NPR was wrong to act as a gatekeeper.

When the "Fitna" video appeared, NPR editors decided not to link directly to it on NPR's Web site.

"We basically followed the precedent from last time this was an issue — the cartoons that depicted Mohammed," said Bruce Auster, senior supervising editor for Morning Edition. "At that time, I believe the judgment was that the cartoons were available, through a simple Google search, to anyone interested in seeing them. Adding a link to NPR didn't make them any more available. That was the logic then, and it seemed to apply in this case as well."

When a controversial video such as "Fitna," the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl, or even the recent teenage girls' staged beatings, news organizations need to ask:

* What is the journalistic value?

* What is appropriate? What is acceptable?

* Who will be harmed?

* What are our ethical concerns?

* How can we put this in context to better inform our audience?

The Society for Professional Journalist's ethics code says that headlines, graphics and video should not misrepresent, oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

NPR's job is to inform people responsibly about events at home and abroad. NPR was correct in not directly linking to "Fitna," especially when the video can be easily found by taking a few extra steps. It is not NPR's practice to always provide outside links for stories it covers.

Day to Day discussed the controversy on March 28 and I appeared on Tell Me More when the show used the video's release to ask when, if ever, media censorship is appropriate.

NPR could use "Fitna's" release to educate listeners about the strong anti-Muslim sentiment and fear of Islam across Europe.

Filmmaker Wilders is a member of the Dutch parliament. One might disagree with him, but it's important for Americans to understand how his views are shared in Europe and particularly in The Netherlands, which has one of Europe's fastest growing immigrant populations from Muslim countries.

The news media should not exaggerate or promote hateful speech, but it is worth continuing to explore why it exists.


WHAT DO YOU THINK? Is NPR obligated to provide a direct link to "Fitna?" Or is it good enough to just describe the video and let the listener find it on the Web?



Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

I think we at NPR have the right to use our discretion. This does not need to be interpreted as censorship; rather a hand reaching out to heartbeats of our listeners. At times it may be appropriate to provide a direct link, at others it clearly is not.

Sent by Nadia Powell | 3:12 PM | 4-14-2008

If material is news worthy enough to report on it, NPR should link to it. To do otherwise implies that NPR should play a paternalistic role for its listeners. Such a role would seem to imply that NPR doesn't trust the intelligence and judgement of its listeners. When NRP links to the video, it should warn online readers about the nature of what they're about to view, but the benefit of the online environment is that the reader does choose what they navigate to. If a reader is interested enough in your news report, they should have the information to delve deeper into the the subject that you're reporting on. Yes, you could let me find it on my own. But one of your goals should be to make information that you find important enough to report on easier for your listeners/readers to find, explore and better understand.

Sent by Brendan | 10:50 AM | 4-15-2008

You should link when you can link. In the U.S. we do have a "right to insult people." It is called the First Amendment. Why not focus on greeter disclosure at NPR; why not post the complete NPR interviews we hear sound bites from?

You suggest gatekeeping is gone. That is far fetched. Public utilization of technology has allowed greater circumvention of gatekeepers, but some voices (CBS, CNN, NPR, etc) have a lot more volume, and they blast us (mostly with advertisement and indoctrination). W. Lippmann talked about manufacturing consent. Remember that media blitz into war?

You talk about "strong anti-Muslim sentiment and fear of Islam across Europe." Didn't Congressman Tancredo talk about bombing mecca? We hear "Islamo-Fascism," but a big part of fascism is government and corporations working together. Why doesn't the media and NPR ferret that out better?

You have mentioned that NPR aspires to be mainstream, so why do you say "the so-called mainstream media"? I am confused.

Sent by andrew hennessy | 7:06 PM | 4-15-2008

I appreciate that you consider/choose your boundaries wisely. You have every right to exercise editorial control over what's on the NPR site. Although, if you start including feeds and input from listeners that illusion of control could be something of a finger in the dyke.

Still, in the boundless ether of information on the web, I appreciate that you hold fast to a baseline dictated by high values. You are not preventing anyone from seeking information out, you're walking a tightrope between letting people know what's going on and doing it in a way that is part of your identity, and in a way that people value.

Sent by John Tynan | 2:06 PM | 4-16-2008

Why link to anything? Considering "through a simple Google search" readers can do more research.

Sent by Morris Darwin | 2:18 PM | 4-16-2008

Why not a direct link to the Fitna film? If it were a derogatory item about Israeli NPR would have featured it throughout all of its broadcasts. It would seem mitigating Muslim atrocities rather than reporting them better fits NPR policy.

Sent by Fred Cohen | 5:26 PM | 4-16-2008

I'm amused at the comment by Fred Cohen about NPR featuring Israel's derogatory item because anyone who knows the ABC of the situation understands NPR's pro-gov stance on the conflict.
But keeping that aside, I just wanted to comment that with the amount of air-time that was given to this video, NPR might as well had provided the link. The damage of creating more hatred against Islam had been done already so linking the video would not have made much difference to the situation.
It is just ironic that a relatively 'slight' insult on blacks is hugely condemned in the civil society (AND MOST RIGHTLY SO), but to insult Muslims is debated under the guise of Freedom of Expression.

Sent by Sarah Shafiq | 2:47 PM | 4-21-2008

YES YES YES. I watched this for the first time yesterday and it has changed my view of the war and the type of extremist we are dealing with. I've heard many stories similar to the ones in the Fitna video. All just as disturbing. Everyone in the world needs to watch this, whilst also keeping in mind that this is the extremist sect,and should not be thought of as a blanket for all islams.

Sent by John Orr | 1:26 PM | 6-23-2008