Them damn pictures

Feb. 24, 2006 | "Give up the cartoonists; they're in the attic." That is what many of us in the trade feel has been our lot since our brethren in Denmark were forced into hiding after drawing likenesses of the Prophet Mohammed. As art will do, "them damn pictures"-- Boss Tweed's term for Thomas Nast's cartoons from a more innocent time -- have exposed not just the internal dynamics of what some have called Islamofascism but the corresponding corruption of our own values and character in the West. Our insides have been illuminated like an electrocuted Daffy Duck in an old Warner Brothers cartoon. And we now see what we're made of: not a lot of guts, or brains either.

Admittedly, there's something about cartoons, which are by definition unruly, tasteless and immature, that brings out, if not the ayatollah, at least the disapproving parent in even the most permissive of adults. And granted, there may be a rights vs. responsibilities debate to be had over the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten's original decision to commission images of Mohammed. But once these images became a major news story (and given that they easily satisfied Western standards of legitimate commentary and in fact only became internationally controversial after being misrepresented to the larger Muslim world) I can see little reason -- other than bodily fear, bottom-line self-preservation, and just poor judgment -- that the U.S. media and the public officials entrusted with defending our freedoms wimped out so thoroughly when challenged to live up to their historic obligation under the First Amendment to keep the American public informed. When we withhold information in the name of a misguided sensitivity, by default we allow nihilistic street mobs from London to Jakarta to define the debate in this country. In effect, we have capitulated to intimidation and threats and negotiated with terrorists. No need for Zarqawi to behead us. We do it ourselves.

Defensiveness about caving in to the imams spread across the nation's editorial pages, while the 24-hour cable news talking heads clucked tongues about the irresponsible European press that had reprinted the offending images. Even cartoonist Garry Trudeau assured the San Francisco Chronicle that he would never depict the Prophet in his comics in a mocking way; nor would he show improper pictures of Jesus. As "Doonesbury's" Zonker might say, "Dude, this is so not about you!"

The images of Mohammed commissioned by Jyllands-Posten do not mock the Prophet any more than I dishonored Jesus Christ when I drew a cartoon of the Last Supper where Welch's grape juice was served. I was exposing the followers of Christ who used the doctrine of inerrancy to promote a crude agenda; the Danish cartoonists were not only exploring issues of self-censorship and intimidation but also depicting the hijacking of Islam by fanatics like the tormenters of Salman Rushdie and the murderers of filmmaker Theo van Gogh. I would further argue that publishing those cartoons was an act of democratic inclusiveness. In a society of laws, all are treated equally under the law. Law is "insensitive" that way, as is intellectual inquiry, as is satire. By engaging satirically with Islam, these brave artists included Muslims as peers in the tradition of satiric self-examination and irreverence that we have until recently taken for granted in the West. And Denmark's Muslims might have simply expressed their displeasure through the accepted democratic avenues of their adopted country if their unscrupulous imams and the corrupt Arab governments whose tyranny they serve hadn't manipulated the cartoons (by, for example, disseminating some offensive drawings that were not part of the original, rather tame, Danish package) to ignite riots across the Muslim world.

As newspapers in Europe and even Muslim editors in Jordan withstood the intimidation of the jihadists by reprinting the cartoons, the continuing timidity of the American media looks increasingly like cowardice, appeasement, or better-you-than-me cynicism. National spokespersons, meanwhile, have seconded the Muslim point of view; the public relations ambassador Karen Hughes compared the drawings to racial slurs, calling them "blasphemous," and former President Clinton described them as "appalling." By denying their audiences the opportunity to decide for themselves by looking at the images, American media outlets, with few exceptions, kept the public in the dark about the roots of one of the year's major news stories. (Though actually, adding to the absurdity of the mainstream media's editorial anguish, the images are only a mouse click away on the Internet.) The press's reticence is not going to make this controversy go away, any more than its ignoring the newly released images out of Abu Ghraib will make them hate us any less in the Arab world.

We expect such bad thinking and Dilbertism from the corporate media culture, but when artists fear for their lives because of something they've drawn, where are the defenders of free expression among their fellow artists in this country? I understand why newspaper cartoonists, who have seen their jobs shrink from more than 200 only 20 years ago to fewer than 80 today, are reluctant to stick their necks out. Hence, no special day sponsored by the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists designated to drawing the Prophet Mohammed or, failing that, turning in blank cartoons in solidarity with our fellow Danish artists in hiding. But what about those artists who enjoy the immunity of celebrity? Earth to Barbra Streisand. Earth to Alec Baldwin.

Next page: My cartoon titled "What would Mohammed drive?" led to thousands of angry e-mails, and death threats