Toronto Star
TORONTO, CANADA, November 15, 2003: Continuing protests by Hindus led to a revised apology by the Toronto Star for their publishing an photo of an unfinished Goddess Durga icon being prepared for a festival. The initial protests led to the half-hearted apology (see below), but Hindus were not satisfied, and continued discussions with principals of the paper. As a result of the discussions, the editors came to a better understanding of Hindu sensibilities on the issue and today published a revised apology on the religion page. “On Oct. 4, the Star published a photo of an unfinished depiction of the Hindu goddess Maa Durga. Members of Toronto’s Hindu community took great exception to this goddess being presented in an undignified manner. The above picture shows the goddess in an appropriate manner. The Star regrets that publication of the original photo has caused anguish and apologizes to the Hindu community.”
The original apology read, “UNDRAPED GODDESS. Durga is the multi-armed, Hindu goddess of power. Each fall, statues of Durga are worshipped for nine days at prayer festivals, and immersed in water. Last Saturday, the Star ran a Reuters photo of a craftsman in India making a statue of Durga. It ran with a feature on Hindu festival preparations here. The idol in the large color photo was unclothed, dramatically so. The picture stirred strong protests from some Hindu readers who said the undraped, frontal view was at least disrespectful, at worst ‘blasphemous.’ Said an editor: ‘We’re sorry if this representation of the goddess offended some readers. It was unintentional.’ An effort to photograph a local statue being built had failed, she explained. So the wire photo was used. Apparently, the Star didn’t understand the idol would never appear unclothed. When asked, several Hindus said the photo didn’t offend them. Still, it’s a reminder that matters of faith are delicate. Editors need to guard against insensitivity.”
Hindus pointed out that this first apology was qualified with the statement, “When asked, several Hindus said the photo didn’t offend them,” but did not identify those who so responded as community leaders, temple priests, scholars of Hindu iconography or even devout Hindus who reflected the feelings of the community. The newspaper had also violated its own guidelines that religious imagery be presented in a “dignified” manner, a guideline it didn’t mention in the first apology, which instead tried to minimize the hurt caused the community by the image’s unnecessary publication.