[t]he Illini Media Co. board of directors, which comprises students and faculty, voted unanimously to fire the editor after a review "found that Gorton violated Daily Illini policies about thoughtful discussion of and preparation for the publication of inflammatory material," according to a statement.I have a question about these policies. Is it not the editor's job to make decisions about publishing material? What if the inflammatory material had been about a racial incident on campus and Gorton decided to publish the statements made by the participants? What if the inflammatory material had been about a different subject? Would Gorton have been fired for failing to adhere to policies?
I find it unlikely that Gorton's ouster was because he failed to consult. Rather, I believe the Board of Directors chickened out because of the controversy. If I ran a newspaper (and I am probably too conservative to do so), then I would want editors like Mr. Gorton on staff. I don't want writers and editors to shy away from controversy. After all, they have a Constitutionally protected freedom of the press and I don't want press censored for the timid and faint of heart, I want to know what is going on in the world--even if it is ugly. The cartoons were newsworthy and deserved to be published.
If Muslims take offense, well that is just too bad. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press is designed to protect the controversial, not the sterilized.
No comments:
Post a Comment