Last week, a Diamondback opinion cartoonist submitted a piece for Good Friday. The cartoon depicted two adjacent scenarios of Jesus Christ’s resurrection. On one side, it shows the resurrection, as it took place 2,000 years ago. On the other, a modern-day gunman mistook the risen Jesus Christ as a zombie and shot him in the head. (You can see the cartoon online on Campus Drive, The Diamondback’s news blog.)
Admittedly, the concept wasn’t exactly original – it comes from the zombie Jesus caricature in popular culture. But the cartoon was still controversial. After some discussion, the members of the editorial board decided not to publish it. According to the post on Campus Drive, they felt they had “every right” to publish the cartoon because it was running on the opinion page. Yet they chose not to do so because “part of a journalist’s duty is to ‘do no harm.'”
Ultimately, I agreed with the editorial board’s decision, though I disagree with its justification. I am not a journalist, but from my view, this wasn’t really an issue of journalistic ethics – for the very reason the board had “every right” to publish the cartoon. Reporters and writers are expected to respect journalistic standards while doing their job. The idea that a journalist should “do no harm” refers to the reporting process; journalists must use discretion when deciding whether or not to report everything they learn. For example, news articles often omit the names of juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
What is written and depicted on this opinion page is, by definition, not reporting and therefore should not be not held to those standards. Deciding whether or not to publish that cartoon, or any other offensive media, is not about free speech versus journalistic ethics – it is about free speech versus human ethics. We often get so caught up in a slightly self-righteous defense of our human right to free speech that we forget the people on the receiving end of our work are human too.
I am sure the cartoonist had something meaningful to say about Good Friday or Easter, but the insensitive nature of his cartoon undermined his message. I think delivering a controversial message is perfectly acceptable, but to be crude in the process detracts from the key purpose of free speech.
In the context of an opinion page, free speech allows writers and readers to express their thoughts and foster a fruitful conversation. But when offensive material is published in the name of free speech, it fails to live up to its own objective. Instead of prompting a conversation on that relevant topic, the author sparks an argument about whether or not the piece was appropriate. In this way, controversial media should not be published just because free speech allows it to be – it directly contradicts its motive.
It is certainly possible for a writer or cartoonist to offer an opinion on a sensitive issue without being hurtful or making his or her readers angry. To do so is not easy. But it is the author’s responsibility to understand his audience and appeal to them effectively. Insulting readers simply because you can is not the point of free speech – remember, your readers are human, too.
Osama Eshera is a junior bioengineering major. He can be reached at eshera@umdbk.com.
