By Reuben Baker
Public Edtior

I sat down this afternoon with Editor-in-chief Joe Schwartz and Managing Editor Kavita Pillai to discuss some readers’ concerns that Ben Pittard’s arts column was insensitive to the issue of sexual assault. The column was not read by Joe before printing, but by another editor. Joe said, however, that he read the first paragraph and questioned the editor on whether the column was appropriate. He said he also regrets not having a fuller discussion at the time. Editors hesitate to edit columns too much because they don’t want to encroach on a columnist’s ability to voice his personal opinion, however in this case Joe said the offensive material should have been left out because it was not vital to the meaning of the piece. Schwartz offers his apology to anyone who was offended by the work.

The DTH does not wish to offend any of its readers. Both Kavita and Joe recognized the insensitivty of the column, particularly to anyone who may have experienced sexual assualt. Joe plans to meet with the editors, as well as the columnist to question their choices and see if anything further needs to be done to prevent similar instances from occurring in the future.

A Cavalier Daily (UVa) cartoonist did the right thing by apologizing last Friday. He received a lot of criticism for two cartoons he drew. The first depicted Jesus crucified on a cartesian coordinate (X-Y) plane. The second cartoon, which ran the next day, implied that Mary mother of Jesus had a sexually transmitted disease. The cartoon showed Joseph asking Mary how she got a mysterious rash and she responded, “I swear, it was immaculately transmitted!” I have to agree with The Cavalier Daily ombudsman, Lisa Fleisher, when she says, “I understand and applaud The Cavalier Daily’s desire to leave the doors of free speech as wide open as possible, including items that might offend people. But there needs to be a solid, understandable point or message involved. Offending just for the sake of offending– or even to get people talking –is just juvenile and unprofessional” (Cavalier Daily September 13, 2006). I disagree with Ms. Fleisher, however, when she says she does not think an apology is necessary. Is an apology really too much to ask, and does it really infringe upon one’s rights to free speech and press if they apologize after making a clear mistake? Offensive columns or cartoons are pointless if they do not have some pertinant point to get across. Take the DTH cartoon for September 19 for example, depicting Pope Benedict XVI with his sandals in his mouth. This cartoon might offend some catholics, but it is a relevant commentary on his recent comments about Islam.

I’m glad to see the links on the DTH homepage to some of the new multimedia features. They are really interesting, and something that you cannot get from reading the print copy every day. I hope everyone checks them out. Although, if you are online reading this blog you have probably already seen some of them.

There have not been very many letters to the editor. I know many of you have input or criticisms of the paper, so we’d like to hear them. Send me an email at rcbaker@email.unc.edu or write a letter to the editor. Either way, whatever your opinion is, we want to hear it.