“Fourplay” Actually Just Self-Righteous Intellectual Masturbation
When the Emerald premiered its cleverly-titled “Fourplay” section, I distinctly recall catching a telling whiff of the musky aroma of desperation and intellectual stagnancy. The naughty innuendo, the perky layout, the “tailored-to-my lifestyle” features were all a clarion cry for help, asking, no, begging us to not skip straight to the sudoku after laughing off the latest commentary drivel. Well, thanks to Fourplay Columnist Carrie Packwood Freeman’s newly premiered column “The Ethics Behind:…” we are now graced by uninformed yet wholly self-satisfied musings on the ethical failings of others instead of the usual parade of AP news brief regurgitation. Normally this would come as good news to a Commentator Editor with an unquenchable thirst for more Spew content, except that for her first column, Ms. Packwood Freeman has decided to tackle the ethical issues of printing religious cartoons, and in the process utterly conflates Commentator content with that of the Insurgent, which makes for great holier-than-thou lecturing, but ultimately creates media ethics issues of its own.
In the very first paragraph of her column, Ms. Packwood Freeman assigns identical intentions to the Insurgent’s “Aroused Jesus” cartoons and our own publication of the Jyllands-Posten’s Muhammed cartoons, saying that “The intent of both… was to push the envelope and be overtly sacrilegious, demonstrating that religion, which has some harmful social consequences, does not deserve a special status that makes it immune to satire or criticism.” While this was certainly the general intent of the Insurgents project, and possibly that of the Jyllands-Posten’s cartoonists, had Ms. Packwood Freeman taken a moment to read the editorial accompanying our publication of the Muhammed cartoons, she would have realized that our intent was, in fact, unambiguously more than simple provocation. Here’s what she missed:
First, what prompted us to print the cartoons was not the controversy itself, nor any affinity with the unnecessary inflammation of religious unrest, but rather the fact that two student editors at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champagne’s Daily Illini were suspended for printing the cartoons, making the issue one that required soul-searching by any self-respecting college publication. After editorial discussion and reflection, the decision was made to print the cartoons in an act of solidarity with those whose free expression was limited by taking on the issue.
Second, our editorial touches only briefly on the religiously provocative nature of the cartoons, and even then, the issue for us was always a question of free expression rather than making any kind of “statement” on religions place in society. We did admit that “the publication you hold in your hands is designed to provoke– that cat has long been out of the bag and is now feral, roaming the hillsides.” Without getting into the ethical issues of colorful metaphor, we made it clear that the religious critique had been made (and the resulting riots had taken place), and that our intention was to comment on the larger debate which was then raging around the world regarding the balance between state, religion and press.
Third, although our position was clearly a defense of open society and free expression, we were careful to point out the fact that the experiment of creating an open society was “an excruciating, ongoing struggle with itself” which we firmly see ourselves as a part of. Referencing Malcolm X’s vision of Islam as “a brotherhood of humankind in which all are welcome, regardless of race or socio-economic class, humbly experiencing their humanity in one another’s presence,” we go on to say that “(this) Islam is as much a legacy of Muhammed as is the insensate violence that grabs the headlines– and it is up for debate which Islam future historians will remember as the true one.”
Sadly, this endless blog post would not have been at all necessary had Ms. Packwood Freeman taken a moment to actually read our page and a half editorial. Apparently, there was little self-reflection on the part of Ms. Packwood Freeman as to the consequences of writing a column which criticizes the ethical practices of others, as she should surely have realized that everyone loves to see the holier-than-thou fail miserably at meeting the standards they so eagerly apply to others. As Editor-In-Chief of the Commentator for the 2006-07 school year, let me be the first to welcome Ms. Packwood Freeman to the campus debate, and let her know that if she is to be the ethical sage for our public discourse fishbowl, she had best bring her “A” game each and every week… and failing that, to at least read what she happens to be criticizing.
Welcome to the jungle Carrie, I get the feeling it’s gonna be a long year!
