Thursday, February 19, 2009

Freedom of the Press - Without Common Sense

I'm sure there is no need to explain the title of the blog, if you read blogs, more than likely you read and/or watch the news and have been made aware of the NY Post cartoon that is drawing massive attention.
I've read blog after blog and comment after comment on whether the cartoon was racially motivated or simply political satire, my opinion is that is was a racial slur wrapped in political satire. Many are calling for an apology, from the cartoonist, and from the Post; if they give in and deliver an apology, do you really think it would be sincere?
Looking at this from a journalistic perspective, one could easily argue the Freedom of the Press argument, I'm almost certain that term will be used by the Post. As a writer/blogger, I value my right to speak candidly on any issue that I choose to discuss. I value my right to publicly display my opinions for those that wish to read them. At a granular level, Sean Delonas was exerting his right to Freedom of the Press and and in some form, Freedom of Speech. The dividing line should be coupling common sense with morals, and connecting that to your given freedoms, of which it appears Mr. Delonas did neither.
I foresee a lengthy media circus surrounding this issue which will no doubt make more money for the NY Post owner Rupert Murdoch who just so happens to also own FOX News. The more press this gets, the more airtime Rupert can devote to it, thus providing more viewing of his News channel. Media moguls don't get to be media moguls without having a niche, it appears the niche over at the Post is to spark controversy regardless of the fallout.


  1. Anonymous6:48 AM

    I agree, He had the right to use his freedom of speech but should have also used some common sense. I am still outraged that the paper would print the cartoon.

  2. Yes He did have the right to use His freedom of speech. He should've used wisdom. I can't believe that the NY post would print that. I know who I am boycotting

  3. i agree in the principle, and i also agree with the deeper issue. when you begin to add 'common' sense to the mixture, then you have to qualify that with 'who's sense is common? what sense is common?' its what has fueled controversy and contradiction over censorship in all of its forms, and its also been used to fuel agents of discrimination, racism and sexism. creating a 'moral minority' to have greater control over what an entity or individual can say or do is a very powerful step toward a police society. and if a few assholes must be tolerated (revealing nothing more than their ignorance) so that true creative and expressive freedom can be preserved, that is not too high a price to pay. sadly, its to the point where its more important to be RIGHT than to be correct, and this is clearly evidence of that.