On Monday night, I had the pleasure of hearing Sir Salman Rushdie, one of my favorite authors, give a talk on campus. I found his lecture to be entertaining and profound, just as I find his writing. I especially enjoyed his discussion of the responsibility of the artist: to “open the universe a little bit more” and push the boundaries of human consciousness.

Though the topic of his discussion was primarily literature, Mr. Rushdie touched on some ideas relating to the media. It was in this context that he made a comment I found confusing. Twice during the evening, Mr. Rushdie criticized the American media for what he described as its “right-wing authoritarian” suppression of diverse opinions and alternative viewpoints. Furthermore, he asserted that the European media is in fact more generous and welcoming of diverse opinions and perspectives than the American media. It is true that the American media is far from perfect. Reporting blunders, overemphasis of banal, unimportant news items and layoffs of dozens of employees in necessary cutbacks are testaments to the instability and unreliability of America’s media institutions. Furthermore, the rise of the blogosphere has convinced many that one need not rely on CNN or FOX News for information. So yes, American media institutions are in trouble, but I found Mr. Rushdie’s condemnation of “right-wing authoritarian” news monopolists to be borne more out of his necessity to compliment and counterbalance his critique of “left-wing appeasement of Islamic Fundamentalism.”

That said, I found his assessment of European media as more open and free than American media to be rather bizarre and even troubling. First of all, regardless of the increasing cohesiveness of the European Union, the countries that comprise Europe are incredibly different from each other, especially politically and socially, with equally diverse media cultures. Some European countries do have rather free media institutions. The most powerful recent example I can think of was in regards to the resurgence of the Muhammad cartoons controversy. To me, the most striking moment occurred in February of this year when 17 Danish newspapers that had initially refused to publish the controversial cartoons changed their position and printed them out of solidarity — solidarity with a cartoonist who now lives in hiding because of death threats from offended Muslims.

The fact that newspapers, initially opposed to printing these cartoons, would change their position solely to support a colleague is a noble and rare feat. It exemplifies the notion that the content of any published piece is less important than the freedoms that justify and welcome its presence in the public forum. Speech is not free if it is accompanied by the risk of threats and violent actions. In their concerted efforts, the Danish papers sought to show their firm resolve against intimidation and threats to free public expression.

France, however, is an entirely different country with different political and media institutions from those of Denmark. In France, politics and media are often one and the same, notably with the case of the television station France 2. France 2 is nationally owned, meaning the government has direct control over how news is presented. Furthermore, the manner in which the station handles errors in reporting reflects larger political forces. In recent years, France 2 made a significant reporting error and their response has been to ignore and deny the issue.

I am referring to the story of Muhammad al-Dura, a Palestinian boy reportedly killed by Israeli soldiers in September 2000. The boy’s death at the hands of the IDF served as a pretext for countless acts of violence against non-Muslims, ranging from numerous suicide bombings in Israel to the beheading of Daniel Pearl. Plentiful evidence clearly demonstrates the fraudulence of the original news footage. Not only that, for the last two years, a defamation lawsuit has been underway, waged against an independent media analyst on behalf of France 2’s most prominent foreign correspondent, Charles Enderlin.

Still, the French media has been utterly silent about the Muhammad al-Dura affair. This is not the silence of ignorance, but a concerted, knowing silence, designed to protect the reputation of France 2. This situation epitomizes the corrupt and suppressive tendencies of French media, which easily trumps Mr. Rushdie’s “right-wing authoritarian” American media. As Mr. Rushdie affirmed the transparency and openness of the European media, I could not help but wonder what he thinks of France’s treatment of the al-Dura affair. Of course, there is the possibility he is not familiar with the case — after all, he wouldn’t have learned about it from the French press.

In the coming days, we look forward to welcoming two important figures in the European media to campus to share their views on these significant issues. Last night, May 7, Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten who commissioned the now-infamous Muhammad cartoons, spoke in Cubberley Auditorium. On May 12, Philippe Karsenty will speak on the al-Dura affair and his role as defendant in the libel case brought against him by France 2. I encourage you to attend these events and assess whether the European media is as free as Mr. Rushdie claims it to be.

Jennifer Chernick is a member of the class of 2009.