I just had an amusing off-the-record conversation with someone at Comedy Central. They have released a simple public statement on their decision to deny South Park the right to show a depiction of Mohammed in their Wednesday episode, Cartoon Wars--Part II:
"In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision."
There is much more in an earlier post here.
UPDATE: The Washington Post now has a story that gives some background (tip to Malkin):
When the [Danish] cartoons were reprinted in newspapers worldwide in January and February, it sparked a wave of protests primarily in Islamic countries.
Parker and Stone were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Muhammad, according to a person close to the show who didn't want to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity.
The network's decision was made over concerns for public safety, the person said.
Comedy Central said in a statement issued Thursday: "In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision." Its executives would not comment further. . . .
A frequent "South Park" critic, William Donohue of the anti-defamation group Catholic League, called on Parker and Stone to resign out of principle for being censored.
"The ultimate hypocrite is not Comedy Central _ that's their decision not to show the image of Muhammad or not _ it's Parker and Stone," he said. "Like little whores, they'll sit there and grab the bucks. They'll sit there and they'll whine and they'll take their shot at Jesus. That's their stock in trade."
Parker and Stone did not immediately respond to a request through a spokesman for comment.
Related Posts (on one page):
- We Hit the Big Time!
- Comedy Central Censored out of Fear, not Tolerance.--
- South Park Discussion Thread.--
- See the [FAKE] censored clip of Mohammed from South Park, now playing on the web.--
- Comedy Central Releases Brief Statement on Decision to Censor Mohammed.--
- Did Comedy Central Censor South Park?
- US sticks its head in sand to avoid seeing a Muhammed cartoon--coming to you on South Park tonight.--
--The Management
If this "public statement" consists solely of one (unnamed, unverifiable) source speaking to you privately it's not very public, now is it? Further, until I see an actual published public statement I'm inclined to believe that they're pulling your leg.
In light of recent events, CC moves us yet another increment closer to a poll tax, levied by our enlightened, tolerant masters.
Submit.
What right? The creators have a right to free speech, but not a right to free speech on Comedy Central.
If the management at Comedy Central (owned by Viacom) were going to back down in the face of Tom Cruise's threats, why would they be expected to have more courage now?
(Alternate response is based on the other side consistently making up "rights" to suit its purposes)
NR Media Blog
Malkin
the right isn't the question; the ramifications of the act is.
Well put. This is why I have less of a problem with CC and Borders than with the newspapers. The former exist to make a profit. So do the latter, but they assert lofty pretenses that their actions dont bear out.
Yes, it seems they did wimp out here, but that's their choice to make (as Anon points out). My intuition was wrong. Mea culpa. I want to commend Malkin, though, for actually posting a link to an impartial source rather than simply to other bloggers trying to make a statement.
I don't disagree -- but I think it's worthwhile to keep our terminology straight. And Prof. Lindgren knows better.
http://tinyurl.com/zbr4w
In part:
"Parker and Stone were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Muhammad, according to a person close to the show who didn't want to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity.
The network's decision was made over concerns for public safety, the person said."
I got the NR and Malkin links from Little Green Footballs.
whatever- if you're closer to the truth, pursue:)
I got the NR and Malkin links from Little Green Footballs.
whatever- if you're closer to the truth, pursue:)
I can think of several groups this applies to.
true. in my uneducated opinion, the SP guys don't have a right to be heard against their employers wishes.
the larger part of the situation, for me, is fearing islamic backlash- I don't believe we should fear it, or use that as a factor in decisions about what we will or will not do or say, in the course of our normal lives.
The fact is that Muslims, like Scientologists, succeed at forcing people to back down not strictly through their methods, but rather through their hardcore commitment. (Much of what Muslims / Arabs get Europeans to do to Jews / Israelis is not achieved through the threat of terrorism, but through the threat of doing business elsewhere.)
I'm not saying that CN should've backed down, or that I want Christians / Jews / the disabled / etc. to protest more effectively against offensive materials. I'm just saying that focusing on violence may be slightly misleading.
So what is the difference that gets this act mentioned 3-4 times, on the website alone, not to mention the numerous other bloggers going on and on about it?
And the link to this "simple public statement" is where? Google isn't turning anything up, and Comedy Central's own website has no such press release available.
If this "public statement" consists solely of one (unnamed, unverifiable) source speaking to you privately it's not very public, now is it? Further, until I see an actual published public statement I'm inclined to believe that they're pulling your leg.
Another comment:
Yes, it seems they did wimp out here, but that's their choice to make (as Anon points out). My intuition was wrong. Mea culpa. I want to commend Malkin, though, for actually posting a link to an impartial source rather than simply to other bloggers trying to make a statement.
++++++
John,
Thanks for the apology.
I spoke to an executive at Comedy Central at some length. The only thing he said on the record was that they had just released a public statement. He read it to me and emailed it to me. I posted it accurately. Of course, confirmation is nice, but do you really need to read something in the Washington Post before you will believe it?
I thought that people here would want to know as soon as I did. (Although I was (I believe) the first blogger or news outlet to post last night about Comedy Central's censorship of the episode, I was not the first to post their public statement today.)
Jim Lindgren
Since people point to MI:3 ads as the Scientology reason I think focusing on the "Bloody Mary" episode is more analogous
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,18055,00.html
To me it looks like Comedy Central is being evenhanded across the board with its actions regarding South Park.
In fairness, as a practicing Catholic, I think that Donohue goes over the top a lot. And in this instance, he is dense. But I suppose he has to be consistent with his prior denunciations of South Park.
I'm a BIG BIG FAN of South Park, despite their offenses towards Catholics. I don't let it bother me because in reality their jabs are kind of mindless. Instead of getting his panties in a twist, Donohue should use each moment as a teaching moment, to show why Catholicism is above such teases.
the Catholic League did not resort to violence. Relatively speaking, I have less much of a problem with an episode getting pulled due to an economic issue -such as Tom Cruise &Scientology. That's a rational business decision. And to a degree it's the same with the Catholic League. My real, main concern is when people can get episodes pulled because they've used violence in the past and threaten to do so in the future. That is outside of the rules and, IMO, must be stood up to at all times.
James Lindgren, you might want to retract that you broke the story, according to Mike and rbj they knew the Muslims knew about this before you did, I am sure one of them had to have a blog.
first, loosen your clothing, drink some water and sit down. that should help with the shock.
second, it's not that the violent muslims knew of comedy central and threatened violence. it's that people who work at CC, by virtue of having a pulse, know of the capacity of muslims to be violent, particularly when someone draws a cartoon of their prophet. i'm not sure, but someone on this blog mentioned something about that once.
Isn't that just taking away their right to free speech, but in the other direction.
Joe is walking down the street on Monday, and he sees that someone steps on Steve's shoe. Steve goes berserk, and beats up the culprit. Then he sees the same thing on Tuesday, when a different guy steps on Steve's show. On Wednesday, when Joe sees Steve, he crosses the street, because though Steve never said, "if you step on my shoe I will kick your ass," Joe can infer what Steve might do under given circumstances based on what he did previously. Solve for "X." Seriously, do you really not understand this?
In my opinion some commenters are giving more credit than necessary to the "press releases" that purports to attribute the censure of Mohhammed to the possibility of violence. I doubt that it was the driving factor behind the censure, and would imagine that Comedy Central used the artistic creativity of Parker and Stone to highlight the issue of censure in the MSM through its South Park vehicle, while at the same time generating controversy that would have been significantly reduced if the character of Mohammed was actually shown.
"Lame."
Donohue is a jackass. Unfortunately, the press always seems compelled to interview him, giving the impression that there is widespread Catholic outrage. When in fact, most Catholics couldn't get by (as Catholics) without a healthy sense of humor.
I understand the violence/boycott difference, but I still have to ask if you were a TV executive which reason to censor something is more convincing, "we may loose a little money" or "someone may die over this".
I actually think the episode did a good job of recognizing the difficult position that the provocatuers sometimes put the 'higher ups' in by doing things just to get a rise out people. It was very balanced and nuanced in my opinion even if ultimately the writers reject censorship. It was much more fair (and unfair) to the entire spectrum of thought than the current blog swarm is reflecting.
But just watch it yourself tonight and see what you think.
Now it would be one thing if this happened as a result of an economic boycott or other peaceful protest but somehow I don't think the reason comedy central decided not to air mohammed anymore was for fear of the islamic south park viewers they would lose (or the islamic comedy central viewers they would lose either). Rather it seems to be about the threat of violence or perhaps government censorship in parts of the world. Thus it is caving to violence and it is just as despicable as if the NYT refused to publish editorials praising the war in iraq because extremists threatened violence.
I think you asked a rhetorical question, but in case it wasn't: Yes.
I can't link to my Inbox, but if you go to their website and submit a complaint, I assume you'll get the same response I did. For what it's worth, since I didn't want the message to go to the producers/staff of South Park, I submitted it under "Other" with the title "Censorship."