The Charlie Hebdo is publishing a cartoon of Islamic prophet Mohammed as its front page, the BBC reports. Unsurprisingly the BBC doesn’t show the cartoons in question. I know there’s a big pit thread on the subject on whether choosing not to show the cartoons in question is pussying out or sensible pragmatism, so I want to see the the overall opinion.
The scenario is, you’re the editor in chief of a major news outlet and the cartoons in question are newsworthy. Do you print them? Why/why not?
Forgot to but a link to the specific cartoon in question (the cartoon is a depiction of Muhammed holding a sign saying “Je Suis Charlie” under the words “Tout est pardonne” (‘All is forgiven’))
Pity I cannot change the option, once clicked. I said “yes – send a message about free speech”, but then I realised that the only reason I would publish them is if I found them funny, satiric and to the point. Which, in the case of the Charlie Hebo and the Danish cartoons, I do. So that puts me in the category of “Yes – for another reason”. I am all for supporting the right to free speech, but I prefer saying things that really matter to me, that’s all.
How do editors typically handle a case in which personal/religious beliefs clash with news coverage? I’m asking because my instinct is to say no, I am a Muslim, and it is against my beliefs. However, if my job as an editor is to leave those beliefs at the office door, and it’s pertinent or important as part of news coverage, then I would say my commitment to my profession (which I chose) takes priority. Otherwise, at what point do you draw the line? No pictures of immodestly dressed people? No inclusion of certain editorial pieces? I’m not sure though that reprinting offensive cartoons qualifies as news coverage. For me, it comes down to: 1. What are my responsibilities as an editor and 2. What are the reasons for reprinting the cartoons
I have no idea, but for sake of argument assume you have the final say regardless.
I checked the ‘yes - send messge about free speech’ without any second thoughts’.
Accodring to this article, the magazine, which normally sold average of about 60,000 copies, but has now gotten ‘orders’ for around three million copies for the latest post-attack edition. I presume this a show of support (for th most part) of the populations support for their right to do so, and in a way, show solidarity for Hebdo and their right to do such things without having their people brutally killed by those who disagree. The magazine also implies that they do not want to let the attack prove that fear/terror will affect them or stop them. They seem to want the draths of their workers to have a strong meaning in for what they believed in, in a manner of speaking.
Je Suis Charlie! Good call 
I like France’s ( and seems most of free-world’s people’s) strong solidarity for free speech - sending out around 10000+ troops/cops to protect potential targets, etc. And the biggest ‘rally/show-of-support in its history. Its what reasonable person’s give their life for (Military, etc), andI have borne arms to do my part in protecting that right. A cliche’ I live by is "I may not like what you say, but I will risk my life to protect your life for the right to say such things, no matter how offensive it may be to me or others.
Those fucking ‘radicalized fuckers’ have no place on this planet, IMHO, and should be hunted down and neutrralized in some manner. Boko Harum comes to mind, but that is a different matter, but closely related in concept.
I voted, Yes because Free Speech, but really it’s - Yes, because Fuck Off You Ignorant Fundamentalist Fucking Shit Stains.
What QuickSilver said.
Also, it would sell a lot more copies. I’m a pragmatic editor.
I voted “Yes, to send a message” for republishing others’ cartoons in a news story about those cartoons. But I’d be holding my nose while I did it, because I find some of them personally ethically objectionable on racism grounds, independent of the religious offense. I might even include an editorial disclaimer to that effect.
I’ve seen the cartoon in question and what struck me is how do people know it’s Mohammed?
Yes, I know they’ve said it’s him but if you showed it to a random person in the street how would they know?
To me it just looks like a random bloke.
I can tell when people are depicting Jesus or Moses or even God as there’s a general caricature used in the west for those ‘people’ but given nobody is meant to depict Mohammed at all how would a person unfamiliar with Hebdo’s work know who it was mean to depict?
Anyway, I voted Yes.
I would suggest that editors would typically not take such a job where what they publish is constantly in contradiction to their beliefs.
And no, cartoons don’t count as “news coverage”. They are “satire”. News is supposed to be fact base.
Although Fox News has sort of blurred the line between news and satire. Not so much with their ridiculous reporting style. But every time Bill O’Reily engages in a “serious” debate with Jon Stewart as if the two shows are on parity with each other. As Stewart told him, “Fox News is supposed to be a legitimate news reporting network. The Daily Show is sandwiched between shows starring puppets.”
That they are truly newsworthy–that an honest telling of an important story requires them–is the only reason I can see to print them. If the scenario stipulates that is my judgement, then yes, for that reason.
Otherwise no, because I’m not a dick for no good reason.
I don’t need to print particular objectionable material to send a message about free speech. Printing my paper as usual, according to my principles and editorial discretion, is already a working exercise in it.
Yes, if everybody on staff was OK with risking their life.
Offending the offensive is a laudable goal in itself.
Which is why I make fun of retarded people at every opportunity.
I chose “other”, as in I would publish if showing them were relevant to the article, i.e. newsworthy.
Look closer, he’s wearing a name tag saying “Hi! I’m Mohammed”.
In this particular situation I would, because free speech. People have a right to be offensive jerks. While I don’t personally like the vast majority of Hebdo’s content, I’d publish it as part of a news story rather than imply through self-censorship that the murderers had a good point.
The problem is that I don’t find the cartoons in question funny or provocative. They’re just - stupid. They don’t do much beyond sophomoric digs. Maybe if my French were better, I would get the jokes. OTOH I don’t care for Jerry Lewis either - go figure.
Stupid and sophomoric is also protected speech, of course, but clever satire “feels” more worthy of protection.
Regards,
Shodan
If, through omission, you show a preference to any one religion over any other religion, you tacitly give it power, authority, and control to it over you.
Make fun of all religions equally and freely and live your life as it was intended… or make fun of no religions and spend your life hiding and in denial.
Your call.
Some say that One Free Breath of Air is worth a million fearful wheezes and gasps. I believe them.
You find retarded people offensive? 