The Caricature Controversy Global Media and the Manipulation of Civilizations

The Caricature Controversy Global Media and the Manipulation of Civilizations

Yasemin İnceoğlu* İnci Çınarlı** Media Studies is an emerging discipline in Asia and is of enormous significance at a time when many of the countries in this region are witnessing struggles, both within the state apparatus and without to establish enduring democratic institutions and processes. This is the second essay in the series on global media (Media Studies) by two media scholars from Galatasaray University, Turkey..

This paper aims to discuss how global media manipulate the “clash of civilization” based on Van Dijk’s analysis of manipulation mechanism, the limits of the principle of the freedom of expression and of the press, the consequences of editorial judgement and the importance of ethical responsibility in the global media. To this end, editorial conduct in dealing with the crisis, maintaining neutrality and credibility in controversial issues and finally the role of the media in starting a real dialogue between cultures will be analyzed. [This paper was supported by Galatasaray University Scientific Research Projects Commission. ]
*Professor, Department of Journalism, and ** Assistant Professor, Department of Public Relations, Faculty of Communication Galatasaray Universit, Email:* yinceoglu@gsu.edu.tr ; **icinarli@gsu.edu.tr .

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten caricature controversy involving derogatory depictions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, associating him and by implications all Muslims with terrorism, was first published on September 30, 2005 and subsequently in several other countries; caused deaths, injuries, arrests, property damages, protests, boycotts of Danish goods; resulting economic lost and diplomatic tensions. This controversy has raised a lot of serious questions about the limits of freedom of expression and the way that media can handle a crisis as well as the role of the media in intercultural dialogue.

Caricatures historically have been “a weapon of the weak” used to humiliate and shame powerful groups, but it can also be a weapon of the strong, as in the case of anti-Semite caricatures in Germany before the Second World War. The satirical caricature, as in the case of Jyllands-Posten, the “fault” itself is the attacked target. The concept of ‘fault’ arises from the contradiction of ethical values in social life. The ‘fault’ should be found out and corrected, similar to the philosophy where the irrational intended to be found out and eradicated. The apparent immediacy and influence of the visual image in cartoon form, especially political cartoons, has frequently been preferred for its strong provocative influence which is described below by Bob Steele, from Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values:
Political cartoons are the visual equivalent of a strong editorial or column. They should express strong opinion. They should evoke and provoke. They should evoke some sort of emotional reaction from those that see the political cartoon. […] And, ideally, the political cartoons provoke someone to action. […] Political cartoons spark some sort of reaction by expressing some point of view .
On the other hand, as Chaos Theory reveals, the butterfly’s wings flapped on and the storm has broken across the Islamic world. In the age of decentralized global networks, the exponential effects of the butterfly’s wings are uncontrollable and consequently any provocative publication with a sensitive religious content could turn into a dreadful mistake.

The global media wield tremendous power as purveyors of vital information. On the one hand there is the potential to erase erroneous impressions and stereotypes and to ease tensions; on the other hand the potential to create fears and perpetuate anxieties, attribute undoubtedly substantial responsibility to the media.

This paper aims to discuss how global media manipulate the “clash of civilization” based on Van Dijk’s analysis of manipulation mechanism, the limits of the principle of the freedom of expression and of the press, the consequences of editorial judgement and the importance of ethical responsibility in the global media. To this end, editorial conduct in dealing with the crisis, maintaining neutrality and credibility in controversial issues and finally the role of the media in starting a real dialogue between cultures will be analyzed.

Origins and Chronology of Controversy
The controversy started with an article headlined ‘Deep fear of criticism on Islam’ in Danish newspaper Politiken detailing the difficulty encountered by the Danish author Kåre Bluitgen who was unable to find an artist to illustrate his upcoming children’s book on the biography of Muhammad because of aniconism in Islamic religion. In Islamic doctrine, the depiction of the prophets is prohibited due to idolatry concerns.

Afterwards, another Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten’s cultural editor Fleming Rose decided to assign 40 prominent cartoonists of the leading newspapers of the country to make caricatures depicting the Prophet. Consequently 12 derogatory caricatures covering full page including one showing Prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a lit fuse, were published. Rose denied that the purpose had been to provoke, and expressed the aim of the publication of the caricatures as “to find out how far the self-imposed censorship had gone.” Rose furthermore stated that “as part of an ongoing debate on freedom of expression that we cherish so highly” and these illustrations could be interpreted as taking the initiative of testing the boundaries of the freedom of expression. He also added,“Religious feelings cannot demand special treatment in a secular society,” and “in a democracy one must from time to time accept criticism or becoming a laughingstock”.

Subsequent to publishing caricatures, Danish Muslims organizations staged protests in response. Eleven ambassadors of Islamic countries demanded action and apology from the government, however Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen refused to intervene and apologize and said:
The freedom of expression is the very foundation of Danish democracy. The freedom of expression has a wide scope and the Danish government has no means of influencing the press. However, Danish legislation prohibits acts or expressions of a blasphemous or discriminatory nature. The offended party may bring such acts or expressions to court, and it is for the courts to decide in individual cases.

Two weeks later 3,500 people demonstrated peacefully in Copenhagen. Although no immediate outcry occurred following the publication of the caricatures, Jyllands-Posten’s interviews with Danish Muslim organizations on the controversy and reprinting of the caricatures in many countries as an act of solidarity triggered violent acts. In October, the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr published some of the caricatures. These 12 caricatures were subsequently reprinted in the following newspapers: Slobodna Bosna (Bosnian), Expresse (Swedish), Magazinet (Norwegian), La Crónica (Mexican), DV (Icelandic), La Stampa (Italian), El Periódico de Catalunya, Dutch newpapers Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblat and Elsevier, Al-Shihan (Jordanian), New York Sun (American), Belgian newspapers The Brussels Journal, De Standaar, La Libre Belgique and Le Soir, Swiss newspapers Le Temps et Tribune de Genève, Magyar Hirlap (Hungarian), OhMy News (South Corean), Terra (Uruguayan), Público (Portuguese), Página/12 (Argentine), New Zealander National Business Review and The Dominion Post, The Times of India (Indian), Al Día (Costa Rican), El Heraldo (Honduras), Últimas Noticias (Venezuelan), Rzeczpospolita (Polish), Segodnya (Ukranian), Mladina (Slovenian), The Irish Daily Star (Irish) and also French newspapers France Soir, Charlie Hebdo and Le Monde (published one caricature of Muhammad’s face formed only from words that read “I may not draw the Prophet”), German newspapers Die Tageszeitung, Tagesspiegel, Die Welt, Die Zeit and Berliner Zeitung. The caricatures were not published in the United Kingdom except by a student journal, which was pulped before it could reach the stands. Australian Special Broadcasting Service and also Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian CTV television showed images of some of the caricatures in their bulletins in January and February resulted trig Gering violent protests. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria condemned caricatures. In Jordan and Yemen, editors whose papers reprinted the cartoons have arrested and brought criminal charges against. Malaysia declared it an offence for anyone to publish, import, circulate or possess the caricatures.

Whilst the crisis sustained, several countries withdrew their ambassadors to Denmark. Mass protests have taken place in many countries, in some cases leading to violence, loss of life, and destruction of diplomatic and other property: in February in Damascus, both the Norwegian embassy and a building containing the Danish, Swedish and Chilean embassies were set ablaze by protesters. In Beirut thousands of people protested on streets and Danish General Consulate set on fire. Fast-food restaurants, banks and two offices of Norwegian telecom Company Telenor were vandalized in Pakistan. Eleven Christian churches, number of hotels, stores and vehicles were torched during the protests in Ni Geria. As of March 2006, at least 139 people have died and many have been injured during the riots.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing 57 countries, criticized Denmark for failing to apologize and take actions against Jyllands-Posten, and sought a UN General Assembly resolution to ban attacks on religious beliefs. The Council of Europe criticised the Danish government for invoking the freedom of the press.

The economical consequences of the controversy were also significant: consumers, especially Arab nations began a process of boycotting all Danish goods. The governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia issuing boycotts and restrictions on consumer products imported from Denmark. The jobs losses reached 11.000. Danish companies reported millions of euros losses among them Arla, Lego, Bang & Olufsen and also Danish butter can be cited. Nestlé published posters denouncing the rumour that any of its products are Danish in origin. Some companies have replaced their ‘Made in Denmark’ label with a ‘Made in the EU’ label. Others still have used foreign subsidiaries to camouflage the origin of Danish production, according to the Confederation of Danish Industries. The pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk lost a 200 million kroner insulin contract in Turkey. Kuwait’s largest retail chain, the state-owned Coop has taken all Danish products off the shelves. French international supermarket chain Carrefour took all Danish products off the shelves in Muslim countries and Carrefour in Brussels has been boycotted.

As a result with growing political and economic pressure, the editor of Jyllands-Posten apologized, while defending the right to publish the caricatures. And the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso made a statement in the debate on the right to freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs.

Global Media’s Effects on Manipulation of Civilizations
In order to comprehend the global media’s effects on the manipulation mechanism of the civilizations concerning the caricature controversy, our study will be based on T. Van Dijk’s discourse and manipulation analyze. Van Dijk defines manipulation as a discursive form of elite power reproduction against the best interests of dominated groups and in a democratic society, that (re)produces social inequality as a societal and also illegitimate consequence. These elites are powerful since they are able to control the construction of representations and hence, of what are real. Consequently through this social condition of manipulative control, we become passive recipients of news rather than aggressive analyzers of the inherent biases within it. Therefore in our case, the global media is an elite power exerting abuse on the public discourse by the use of freedom of expression with manipulative purpose.

Van Dijk admits that discursive manipulation generally involves the usual forms and formats of ideological discourse, such as emphasizing “our good things” and emphasizing “their bad things”. Hence, the caricature controversy was portrayed in the media as Western “freedom of expression” versus intolerant and backward Islam. Besides, the caricatures are offensive in the way that they depict and stereotype the entire Arab community and Muhammad’s image nonetheless signified and personified all Arabs as savages, terrorists and desert-dwellers in the Western imagination. Consequently this attitude “feeds Islamophobia crawling by reinforcing the equation: Islam equals to terrorism” which has been raised after 9/11. Furthermore through the (re)printing of the caricatures in the global media, the cognitive mechanism of the manipulation based on the repetition has been endorsed and as a result, social consequences of manipulative control have been formulated.

Edward Said describes this Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient as ‘Orientalism’ and portrays as “one of Europe’s deepest and most recurring images of the Other”. These 12 caricatures could be considered as an issue of ethnocentrism and mainly Eurocentrism, through the polarization of “Us” and “Them”, manipulates by focusing societal shared representation of “freedom of expression” of “Our” modern, civilized world and describes Islamic identity as “Other”. Hence, the “universal civilization” refers to “Us in the West” and considers itself responsible for “civilizing” of “Them in the East”. Any attempt to force the East to adopt to path of West would not only fail, but would inevitably lead to a conflict as explained in Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations:
In this new world the most pervasive, important, and dangerous conflicts will not be social classes, rich and poor, or other economically defines groups, but between people belonging to different cultural entities.

As a matter of fact, Huntington concludes and states have overpowering element of religion on culture. Manipulators have promoted racial hatred, which in turn triggered the caricature controversy.
In discursive manipulation mechanism, manipulators have a mental model concerning the cognitive and social characteristics of the recipients, and appeal to relevant ideologies, attitudes and emotions of the recipients. The victims of the manipulation are those recipients who are unable to understand, to see the full consequences of the beliefs or actions advocates by the manipulator. The manipulation mechanism used by the manipulators will consequently force and lead the recipients to act against freedom of expression and discredit them. Since the attitude that can be signified as freedom of expression occurs as a result of European modernization and the public life of within this aspect must be rational. In Islamic countries that have never experienced European type of modernization, there is a tendency of expressing oneself in a more holistic way. Furthermore, modernization sets up its legitimacy on the uncivilized one by trying to civilize it and keeping within the “Other” identity as a model.

Freedom of expression/speech, and of the press is has been included in the global agenda mainly in the post-war era— as a political, legal, and professional concept initially in US and Western Europe. Certainly the right to freedom of expression is fundamental and necessary to protect the exercise of all other human rights in democratic societies and is formed of freedom elements potentially in contradiction with each other. Besides, absolute freedom of speech does not exist-from incitement to racial hatred to libel laws, from the official secrets act to incitement to violence, from banning images of child abuse to the proposed glorification of terrorism, many western societies have no shortage of laws that censor speech-. Moreover, freedom of expression is most valuable when it is exercised strategically and logically, not merely pushed to its limits for naïve sensationalism. Hence, freedom of expression does not give the right to humiliate, offend, demonize, defame or slander and must be interpreted within its own context.

During the process of application of secular values to normal everyday life, blasphemy while in some countries no longer be considered a criminal offence; in others due to historical reasons and public order concerns it exists within the penal code system. Besides, many European nations have blasphemy laws, prohibiting blasphemy against only certain religions, such as Christianity. Such laws are discriminatory and may reflect broader social discrimination. As a result “the problem is based on the tendency of Western Europeans trying to impress the stance they use torwards their religion on Islam.”

Freedom of expression implies responsibility and gatekeepers of the global media ought to consider the effects of any manipulative purpose and thatcould turn into a dreadful mistake.

Editorial Judgement in the Global Media
The traditional mission of journalism is to provide, both as citizens and consumers, reliable and useful information they need to play a part in systems of democracy that is under unprecedented pressure. The primary obligation of the media is to provide meaningful, substantive, accurate, fair information that allows citizens to become their viewers, readers, listeners, online users, and to make good decisions about substantive matters. In the case above, the lack of informed knowledge about the culture, the faith, the history and the context was significant. Furthermore the credibility of the source that depends on the neutrality was missing. Therefore, editorial judgement was lacking in the European newspapers; they behaved in an irresponsible manner and failed.

Six different provocative examples from European newspapers on arguments to reprint the caricatures are presented below:

* The editor of the Corriera della Sera, Magdi Allam said “the principal battlefield is, unfortunately is the West itself, which by now infiltrated and conditioned by the Muslim fundamentalism and extremism” and asked, “What is the West waiting for to intervene?” .

* Spain’s left-wing El Periodico justified its reprint in an editorial arguing that “here, the culture of coexistence between opposed values is very far from the fundamentalist intransigence of Islamism, which believes it has the right to regulate our way of life (…) It is logical that the caricatures irritate certain Muslims. But it is not logical that in the name of a literal and inhuman reading of the Koran, they attempt, also abroad, to suppress critics or threaten with death those who, whether in good or bad taste, practice satire” .

* On the lead editorial of the Le Figaro: “We are the children of Montesquieu, who poked fun at the state religion in his ‘Persian Letters’. We are the children of Voltaire, who fought for the freedom of expression not only of his followers, but also of his enemies” .

* France-Soir ran on its front page a headline claiming: “Yes, we have the right to caricature God”. Reprinting the cartoons inside the paper, the editors argued “no religious dogma can impose itself on a democratic and secular society”. However, this courageous move cost the paper’s director, Jacques Lefranc, his job.

* The editor in chief of the German newspaper Die Welt, Roger Koeppel explained his decision to reprint the cartoons: “I believe that for a newspaper like we are it’s important to point out that freedom of expression, the right of free speech is important even though some people get hurt” .

* Guest editorial of the largest Czech daily Mlada Fronta Dnes, Milan Vodicka wrote: “We are all little Danish today” and called the controversy “a clash of civilizations in a nutshell” .

The above argumentats reveal the Eurocentric point of view on the caricature crisis, which, far from being responsible and informative editorial judgements, was “tutoring” the East on the freedom of expression and on the democracy. Contradictory to the Western media, Turkish media did not publish the caricatures and acted in a responsible manner without any interpretation of the controversy. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Turkish media had the intention of maintaining the public order and avoiding sending any provocative messages to the Turkish media audience, and editorials were inspired the audience to take a moderate stance that had prevented religious sensations to turn into violence.

Conclusion
The publications of the 12 satirical caricatures portrayed all Muslims as ‘terrorists’ and have been utilized to manipulate entire Muslim population. The consequences were; deaths, injuries, arrests, economical losses, the rising xenophobia and mostly Islamophobia which became master signifier for the main conflict issues of identity and globalization. The global media has manipulated the depth of ignorance and prejudice about ‘Other’.

As a matter of fact, this provocation was a manufactured “clash of civilizations” engineered by those who exerted abuse on the public discourse by the use of freedom of expression. Undoubtedly, under no circumstances could the violence be tolerated in a democratic society.

The media as an ‘elite’ power turned the freedom of expression into an abuse and strengthened the polarization of “Us in the West” and “Them in the East”. Instead, the global media should have used the impact of the words and images to start an intercultural dialogue, based on mutual understanding and respect. Since the discussions of new concepts, such as ‘Islamic fascists’ are been introduced in international political literature by neo-con ideologues, the global media ought to be prudent and respectful to the boundaries of the freedom of expression and of the other human rights.

To conclude,clearly the global media, from time to time, ignores its duty as the fourth estate, to provide substantial information to the global audience.

Notes

Oxford Concise English Dictionary describes cartoon as “a humorous drawing in a newspaper, magazine etc., especially as a topical comment” whilst the caricature described as “a grotesque, usually comic representation of a person by exaggeration of characteristic traits, in a picture, writing or mime”.
Thomas Hylland Ericksen, “The Cartoon Controversy and the Possibility of Cosmopolitanism” (Draft), 23.05.2006, http://www.culcom.uio.no/publikasjoner/THE-cosmopolitanism.html, (09.06.2006).
Necdet Sümer, “On the Nature of The Art of Caricature”, 5th International Ankara Cartoon Festival: Cartoon and Philosophy, http://www.nd-karikaturvakfi.org.tr/99/karvefel/karfelns.htm, (01.05.2006).
Bob Steele, “Poynter Podcast: Covering the Caricature Controversy”, Poynter Institute, 13 February 2006, http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=96410, (13.06.2006), p.1.
James Howarth, “Cartoon Chaos”, Open Democracy: Muslims and Europe: a Cartoon Confrontation, 06 February 2006, http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=5&debateId=124&articleId=3244, (11.05.2006).
Financial Times, “Timeline: How The Cartoon Crisis Unfolded”, compiled by Isolin Jorgensen, 6 February 2006.
Ericksen, ibid.
Jan Oberg, “The Muhammad Caricatures: Freedom of Suppression”, 7 February 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060207&articleId=1914, (23.05.2006), p.1.
Justin Raimondo, “Rotten in Denmark: Flemming Rose and the Clash of Civilizations”, 8 February 2006, http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512, (11.05.2006), p.4.
Official response to ambassadors from A.F.Rasmussen, 21 October 2005, http://gfx-master.tv2.dk/images/Nyhederne/Pdf/side3.pdf, (18.04.2006).
“Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons Controversy” , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy, (11.05.2006).
“Economic and Human Costs of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons Controversy”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_Denmark_Movement, (03.07.2006).
“Questions and Answers on The Danish Cartoons and Freedom of Expression: When Speech Offends”, Human Rights Watch, 24 February 2006, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/02/15/denmar12676.htm, (11.05.2006).
Ericksen, ibid. and see also “Economic and Human Costs of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons Controversy”, ibid.
Harsha Walia, “The Row Over the Danish Cartoons”, 06 February 2006, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9678, p.1.
José Manuel Barroso, “Statement on the issue of the cartoons of prophet Muhammad” (Speech 06/86), European Parliament, Strasbourg, 15 February 2006.
T.A.Van Dijk, “Discourse and Manipulation”, Discourse and Society, Vol.17(3),2006, p.364.
Walia, p.2.
Van Dijk, p.359.
Lee Sustar, “A Campaign Against Muslims”, ISR Issue 46, March-April, 2006.
Walia, ibid.
Jean-Marc Balhan, “Caricatures de Muhammad: Le Conflit des Interprétations”, Documents d’Analyse et de Réflexion”, Centre Avec, Février 2006, p.3.
See Van Dijk p.370, for the role of the repeated messages on manipulation mechanism.
Edward W. Said, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient, London: Penguin Books, 2003, p.3.
Said, p.1.
Van Dijk, p.368.
Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking The World Order, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Van Dijk, p.375.
Ferhat Kentel, “Kutsal Hazine Avcıları”, 09 February 2006, http://www.gazetem.net/ferhatkentel.asp, (09.06.2006).
Ragıp Duran, “Basın Özgürlüğü ve Oryantalizm”, 06 February 2006, http://www.bianet.org/2006/03/28/74303.htm, (21.04.2006).
John Keane, The Media and Democracy, UK: Polity Press, 1991, p.
Sajjad Khan, “Looney Toons!”, Open Democracy: Muslims and Europe: a Cartoon Confrontation, 06 February 2006, http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=5&debateId=124&articleId=3244, (11.05.2006).
Saaed Taji Farouky, “Blurred Boundaries”, Open Democracy: Muslims and Europe: a Cartoon Confrontation, 06 February 2006, http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=5&debateId=124&articleId=3244, (11.05.2006).
Oberg, p.2.
Emre Öktem and Melike Batur Yamaner, “Karikatür Krizi ve AİHM Önünde Dine Hakaret Olgusu”, Güncel Hukuk, Mart 2006, s.3, p.33.
Human Rights Watch, ibid.
Cengiz Aktar, “Cartoons’ Polemic: The Dialog of the Deaf”, Turkish Daily News, 07 February 2005.
Aidan White, “Truth, Honesty and Spin”, Democratization, Vol.12, No.5, December 2005, p.651.
Steele, p.2.
David Ouellette, “Mohammed Cartoons: European Newspapers Defend Freedom of Expression”, 1 February 2006, http://www.judeoscope.ca/article.php3?id_article=0247, (07.04.2006).
Ibid.
“The Twelve Muhammad Cartoons: A Survey of the European Press”, Sign and Sight, 24 February 2006, http://www.signandsight.com/features/590.html, (07.04.2006).
Ibid.
AsiaMedia, “Press Freedom vs. Responsibility: Western Media Split Over Issue of Running Caricatures of Prophet”, 07 February 2006, http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=38539, (11.05.2006).
Jeremy Bransten, “Western, Eastern Media View Cartoon Crisis as Test of Values”, Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty, 3 February 2006, http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/B519A89D-CB99-4F12-B2FF-811A253F4046.html, (11.05.2006).

References

Aktar Cengiz, “Cartoons’ Polemic: The Dialog of the Deaf”, Turkish Daily News, 07 February 2005.

AsiaMedia, “Press Freedom vs. Responsibility: Western Media Split Over Issue of Running Caricatures of Prophet”, 07 February 2006, http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=38539, (11.05.2006).

Balhan, Jean-Marc, “Caricatures de Muhammad: Le Conflit des Interprétations”, Documents d’Analyse et de Réflexion”, Centre Avec, Février 2006.

Barosso, José Manuel, “Statement on the issue of the cartoons of prophet Muhammad” (Speech 06/86), European Parliament, Strasbourg, 15 February 2006.

Branstien, Jeremy, ‘Western, Eastern Media View Cartoon Crisis as Test of Value’”, Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty, 3 February 2006, http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/B519A89D-CB99-4F12-B2FF-811A253F4046.html, (11.05.2006).

Duran, Ragıp, “Basın Özgürlüğü ve Oryantalizm”, 06 February 2006, http://www.bianet.org/2006/03/28/74303.htm, (21.04.2006).

Ericksen, Thomas Hylland , “The Cartoon Controversy and the Possibility of Cosmopolitanism”, (Draft), 23.05.2006, http://www.culcom.uio.no/publikasjoner/THE-cosmopolitanism.html, (09.06.2006).

Financial Times, “Timeline: How The Cartoon Crisis Unfolded”, compiled by Isolin Jorgensen, 6 February 2006.

Human Rights Watch, “Questions and Answers on The Danish Cartoons and Freedom of Expression: When Speech Offends”, 24 February 2006, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/02/15/denmar12676.htm, (11.05.2006).

HuntingtonSamuel, The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking The World Order, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.

Keame, John, The Media and Democracy,UK: Polity Press, 1991.

Kentel Ferhat, “Kutsal Hazine Avcıları”, 09 February 2006, http://www.gazetem.net/ferhatkentel.asp, (09.06.2006).

Oberg Jan, “The Muhammad Caricatures: Freedom of Suppression”, 7 February 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060207&articleId=1914, (23.05.2006).

Öktem Emre and Batur Yamaner Melike, “Karikatür Krizi ve AİHM Önünde Dine Hakaret Olgusu”, Güncel Hukuk, Mart 2006, s.3, 33-37.

_________Open Democracy: Muslims and Europe: a Cartoon Confrontation, 06 February 2006, http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=5&debateId=124&articleId=3244, (11.05.2006).

Ouellette, David, “Mohammed Cartoons: European Newspapers Defend Freedom of Expression”, 1 February 2006, http://www.judeoscope.ca/article.php3?id_article=0247, (07.04.2006).

RAIMONDO Justin, “Rotten in Denmark: Flemming Rose and the Clash of Civilizations”, 8 February 2006, http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512, (11.05.2006).

SAID Edward W., Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient, London: Penguin Books, 2003.

Sign and Sight, The ‘Twelve Muhammad Cartoons: A Survey of the European Press’”, Sign and Sight, 24 February 2006, http://www.signandsight.com/features/590.html, (07.04.2006).

Steele, E Bob, “Poynter Podcast: Covering the Caricature Controversy”, Poynter Institute, 13 February 2006, http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=96410, (13.06.2006).
Sustar Lee, A Campaign Against Muslims, ISR Issue 46, March-April, 2006.
Sumer Necdet, “On the Nature of The Art of Caricature”, 5th International Ankara Cartoon Festival: Cartoon and Philosophy, http://www.nd-karikaturvakfi.org.tr/99/karvefel/karfelns.htm, (01.05.2006).
Van Dijk, A., ‘Discourse and Manipulation’, Discourse and Society, Vol.17(3), 359-383, 2006.
Walia, Harsha, “The Row Over the Danish Cartoons”, 06 February 2006, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9678, (09.04.2006).

Whte Aidan, ‘Truth, Honesty and Spin’, Democratization, Vol.12, No.5, December 2005, 651-667.

WIKIPEDIA, “Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons Controversy”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy, (11.05.2006).

WIKIPEDIA, “Economic and Human Costs of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons Controversy”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_Denmark_Movement, (03.07.2006).

eSS Commentaries/ Essay/Media

November 2006

22.09.2007

admin

Mesajınızı bırakın