Dev Nadkarni
Sections of the print media in our neck of the woods-New Zealand and Fiji- succumbed to the temptation of republishing the controversial Muhammad cartoons last month.

But fortunately, unlike in Europe, the Middle East, Pakistan and Indonesia where the protests left several people dead and damage to property and business ran into the billions, the reaction here was non-violent and restricted to civilised protests.

There were reports of some individuals exhorting people in the Islamic nations to stop using New Zealand-made products; but other groups quickly checked this by persuading those nations not to enforce the ban.

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish weekly, first published the cartoons in September last year because, according to its editor, it wanted to stir a debate about self-censorship in that country.

When protests against its publication spread steadily, other newspapers and magazines, first in Europe then across the world, began publishing them-ostensibly to express solidarity with the beleaguered Danish newspaper and in support of the ideals of freedom of expression. Publications that carried the cartoons in New Zealand and Fiji alluded to the same rationale.

If the Danish publication's intention was merely to stir a debate about self-censorship (and that of its supporters to fly the flag of media freedom high), they obviously got their semiotics very wrong. They not only backed a perilously irresponsible idea, but worse, also a badly executed one. Most independent observers have found the drawings to be of poor quality, completely unfunny, in bad taste and offering no editorial comment of substance-which is the very raison d'etre of the political cartoon. That has laid all those publications exposed to the insinuation of an ulterior motive behind the publication of the illustrations.

In ignoring the potential damage the publication of the cartoons would cause especially in view of the highly polarised, short fuse world of today, the editors displayed poor judgment. “Higher principles of media freedom” ring hollow when they are not accompanied by a strong sense of responsibility to community, country and by extension, to the world. Indeed, that is the fine yet fuzzy line of difference between freedom and licence. And the publications that wished to show their solidarity with Jyllands-Posten largely ignored the responsibility part of the equation.

In a sense, it was a case of over-interpretation of the rule book-the very same accusation that most editors would lay at the door of religious extremists who interpret tenets to suit-and justify-their own ideals while the majority disagrees with that view. In choosing to publish the cartoons, the editors clearly over-interpreted the freedom tenet with nary a thought to concomitant responsibility.

The Danish prime minister initially refused to be drawn into the controversy-something that contributed greatly to the snowballing development-on the grounds that media freedom and the freedom of expression should never be interfered with in a democracy. That argument did not wash with the aggrieved countries, which do not necessarily share the ideals of a free, unbridled media. But then, is the western media completely free of direct or indirect legislative or other powerful influences?

Consider these: It is an offence in Germany, punishable by jail terms, to glorify Hitler in the mass media or to deny the holocaust. In the UK, there is a move to ban glorification of terrorist acts and anything in the mass media that would incite terrorism. The Roman Catholic Church in France prevailed upon the courts recently to ban a controversial version of da Vinci's depiction of the Last Supper from being published.

New pictures of the Abu Ghraib prison excesses in the Australian and other media shortly after the cartoons controversy prompted the United States President's office to issue statements asking to curb republication of the offensive pictures for fear of hurting certain people. The American Vice-President's office too is at the receiving end of heated questions about why there was a day-long delay after the shooting incident in officially conveying the news to the media. All that puts paid to any belief-or illusion-of absolute media freedom or governmental non-interference in Western society.

What went terribly wrong in the cartoons controversy was not just bad judgment, blurred vision in making a distinction between freedom and licence and the failure to anticipate its dark consequences; but also a bad case of cultural insensitivity-especially in these supercharged, super-polarised times. As the controversy raged, some publications took a conscious stand not to publish the cartoons citing in their editorial columns their purposelessness, poor taste and potential to offend the faith of a section of the public. Many readers accused these publications of spinelessness, cowardice and, of course, political correctness.

What these accusations sadly failed to acknowledge was the absolute freedom of these publications not to express-to say nothing of the commendable restraint they displayed in the interests of peace, public order, international reputation and the risk of severely injuring the nation's vital export industry.

In these times, media and information flows are borderless and instantaneous-and though nations cling to political borders, the repercussions of relatively small incidents in a corner of the globe can quickly conflagrate entire regions, even the whole world: crises too have become borderless, aided by the new, seamless media and cheap, instant communication channels. Which brings an even greater responsibility on the purveyors of mass communication.

Media pandemics spread far faster globally than bird flu and SARS-and are no less deadly and lingering as is evident from the violence that continues to take a heavy toll on life and property in some countries five months after the first publication of the cartoons.


NOT THE RAREST OF THE RARE!

An international group of naturalists and scientists working on the remote Foja Mountains of Indonesia stumbled on a veritable treasure trove of hitherto unknown species of bird, frog, flower and marsupial, among a host of never-seen-before plants and insects. The find will result in decades of research and keep the taxonomists busy for years. Touted as a 21st century 'Garden of Eden', ecologists called for the entire ecosystem to be left untouched and free of tourists-even of the ecotourism variety. As if heeding that call was the latest group of natives from the nearby province of West Papua to leave their villages and take to the sea in search of political asylum like countless others before them. Found by Australian authorities on Cape York, off northern Queensland, the group was quickly flown to Christmas Island for “offshore processing of asylum seekers” in keeping with policy.

While the scientists strive to create a sanctuary around the recently found species as quickly as possible, humans from that very same land are seeking a sanctuary of their own elsewhere that may be years, if not decades away. After all, the species of the asylum seeker is no longer rarest of the rare!