“A picture is worth a thousand words”, is a common saying rings authentic. Which is why many papers decide to compliment their content articles with visual elements such as photographs, sketches, or political cartoons. However , many people think that some of the images newspapers decide to print are in bad taste.
Big Hewitt, an Evangelical Christian, in comparison a political animation of Muhammad with a bomb intended for a turban, to a drawing of Jesus with a crown of TNT atop his head at an abortion clinic.
Because both cartoons are evenly distressing and offensive, wether you will be Muslim or Christian, I doubt that a newspaper in the United States will print either image.
On the other hand, if I was the manager of a newspaper I could print both pictures. Following the terrorist problems of September 11th there was a huge backlash on the Muslim culture and its people in this region. The cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb as a turban illustrates, literately, how ignorant and insensitive we are to Muslim beliefs.
As editor, I would add an article to the animation explaining just how it is not developed out of malice or hatred, yet it is a form of satire. It was attracted to grab the attention and inspire you to ask questions about the Muslim world, what is currently going on there, and how are we, as a country, involved.
As editor, I would take care of the cartoon of Jesus with a crown of TNT the same way. The accompanying content would plainly state that the in no way mocks the Christian belief system. The picture really does, however , increase questions about how God, or Jesus, would view the bombing of an abortion clinic, wether the life of a fetus is more important than that of its mother, and so forth. As I have mentioned previously, the cartoons happen to be satire, certainly not actual viewpoints or suggestions. The drawings are to be viewed as debate starters or to help you to create your own opinions about what is being described.
Furthermore, under the First Variation of the Metabolism of the Usa, freedom of the press is clearly stated. These pictures, however disagreeable they maybe to some, the magazine has its right to print them plus the readers have right to view them.
In conclusion, I do certainly not feel that any kind of form of imagery is too bold to be printed in a newspaper, least of all a political toon of Jesus with TNT as a crown. As long as the readers do not take the picture for deal with value and may read more deeply into the theme being presented, then right now there is no problem. As for offending persons, they can purchase another paper if they can’t stand the pictures in mine.