In the aftermath of the killings, many news organizations struggled with the decision of whether to republish the cartoons. On the one hand, they argued that freedom of speech and of the press should not be suppressed by religious extremists. On the other hand, the cartoons intentionally push the limits and are offensive to all Muslims.
What do YOU think? Read this Washington Post story, and then write a comment here saying what decision you might make.
This article is unfortunately an almost perfect example of the ever changing "freedom of speech" paradigm and its consequences. Great media is almost synonymous with freedom of speech and publishing. Upon further research, i learne that the comic artists were quite aware of the risks that they were facing and did not give into the terror tactics. This to me, sends a much deeper message than a funny comic strip, about the misunderstandings between the extremists and much of the world. The fact that the Charlie Hebdo decided to keep publishing the same type of work shows the dedication and support of the rights that allow them to do what they do.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that media outlets need to take a risk of republishing the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo. I think the internet has created it's own community of people. I believe that looking for controversial content is a part of our culture as people on the internet. People tend to gravitate towards content on the internet that is perceived as inferior or outlandish to the average person. However, I believe that the terror attacks and the media exposing the actions of the extreme Islamist's is the reason for the success of Charlie Hebdo and it's cartoons. The internet can do the dirty work of displaying these controversial cartoons. The goal of the media should be to redirect their readers or viewers to these images through internet search engines.
ReplyDeleteWhile I obviously do not agree with the brutal response carried out on the cartoon creators at Charlie Hebdo, I am of the personal opinion that it is never okay to publish material that is intentionally provocative or offensive to any religious group. I'm in full support of freedom of the press and believe it is the right of all to exercise that freedom, but to make a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad being shot dead while using the Qur'an as bullet protection simply for the shock value is tasteless and, in my opinion, not something that ANY American news outlet should be endorsing. The "Freedom of the Press" flag should never be waved in defense of such illustrations.
ReplyDeleteI can understand the dilemma that these editors are faced with. If they do decide to post pictures they put their entire staff at risk. I think the larger point is that their fear of displaying what even they say is newsworthy means the extremists win. Dictionary definition of "terrorism":the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
ReplyDeleteI think it would have been a greater display of unity and support had all news outlets shown the latest "Charlie Hebdo" cartoon.
Much like Joel said above, this predicament of "to publish or not to publish" is due to the ever changing face of free speech. These cartoons are obviously newsworthy, catching the attention of both every day people and extremist organizations. But is the buzz created by these cartoons worth the risk they carry with them? In one perspective, these cartoons have the potential to offend the followers of a religion that makes up 23% of the world's population. Understandably, many outlets would shy away from republishing something that has the power to put off such a large populous. In the other, republishing these cartoons can draw a large audience because of the events surrounding them.
ReplyDeleteIf it were up to me, I would have to play it safe and publish the cropped images. There is just too much risk especially after the horrific events at Charlie Hebdo. The government's definition of terrorism is "any act against innocent people for social or political gain", and that something which is unfortunately seen here. Many of us are very unfamiliar with the feeling of suppression, as that is something we are all lucky enough to live without. But in dealing with these cartoons, I think it's best to leave it up to people to look into online.
This whole situation is very interesting to all readers and viewers. They want to know every detail. But I don't think it is necessary for other news organizations to republish the cartoons. The whole story is about terrorism. Why would the other news organizations want to attract that to their station? Is it truly worth a few more viewers? And consequences? The news organizations just need to keep it as news. If the viewer needs to see the cartoons that severely then they are capable of going and searching for them on the internet.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe have learned that cartoons are only cartoons to open minds; minds that understand that not everything should be taken offence to. These same minds are also not bothered by a few images. They know how to shrug off an insult or criticism. At the end of the day cartoons are just visual jokes. They convey ideas without being taken too seriously. Until now that is.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/patchappatte/status/552910782212866049
Apparently to Muslim extremists cartoons are fully loaded weapons that not only threaten their beliefs but also call for murder of unarmed journalists and cartoonists.
https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/charliehebdocartoon2-e1420659299438.png
The Charlie Hebdo cartoons should not have provoked a murderous response. They were offensive just like a million other cartoons before them. The only difference is that now they poked at a religion with a few over the top extreme followers. Muhammad is a deeply religious figure. Some people did think that was worth killing for. It's their way to protect what they believe in. That's apparently how extremists defend an argument. They defend arguments with fully loaded machine guns. Cartoonists everywhere have been warned. In the end the extremists didn't win. They stopped 12 cartoonists from making fun of their religion by killing them and dying in the process. All of that and cartoonists around the world continue their work.
http://d2rg8jfniu44sp.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/158337_600.jpg
Why don’t we fight wars with cartoons instead of guns? We’d make and defend arguments with armies of cartoons and not men and women in their 20s holding machine guns all around the world.
(First post was deleted and updated with this one because some of the spacing was off.)
I feel that freedom of the press is a very important thing but I personally believe there is a difference between the freedom to post news and the freedom to offend. The cartoon horrifically offended Muslims and I would not republish it if it were up to me not because I would be afraid of the consequences but because I respect many different religions and in the Muslim religion most if not all Muslims feel that the Prophet Muhammad is not to be depicted.
ReplyDeleteIt is known that sex and violence captures the attention of us all to a certain degree, however certain topics in my opinion such as government, religion need to be respected and not tarnished in any form. Yet, every voice has a right to be heard. I do not know much of the Muslim religion, what I think I know is that the higher power for Muslims does not condone killing sprees over cartoon comics, however distasteful or disrespectful they may appear. The writer's and editors at "Charlie Hebdo" must've known the risk & had tons of hate mail and threats yet they continued & this tragedy happened. Senseless to the majority I would assume, yet I fear that all of the press has put this organization into a spotlight that they would pay a Kings ransom for & terrorism groups will only attract more followers & commit further atrocities just for the world to know that one day this massacre will be followed up by a greater tragedy.
ReplyDeleteI feel that everyone has the right to publish as they would like. Even if the content is offensive. "Charlie Hebdo" should not have to silence their cartoons due to threats. What happened to the members of there staff is tragic but posting offensive content is a personal choice and the company should have been more then aware of what they were signing up for.
ReplyDelete