BuzzFeed has another (in addition to mine, I mean, she said modestly) useful collection of which media outlet did and which did not show the new cover of Charlie Hebdo.
1. Libération: Yes.
No surprise there, since Charlie is now working out of Libération’s office using Libération’s equipment.
2. CNN: No.
3. CBS News: Yes.
4. The Guardian: Yes.
Yes but with a warning at the top. Many points deducted.
5. Wall Street Journal: Yes.
It’s annoying when the WSJ does better than the Guardian.
6. NBC News: No.
“Doubling down” “of course risks further enraging” – a pox on you, NBC.
7. Mashable: No.
8. The Daily Beast: Yes.
9. BBC: No.
On the website, they mean. The Beeb has shown it on Newsnight and News 24 at a minimum.
10. AFP/Yahoo: Yes.
Again, no surprise there – AFP has been good on this. Notice the unapologetic forthright wording:
11. Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Yes.
USA Today yes; Business Insider yes; NPR no; Washington Post yes; New York Times no; LA Times yes; The Blaze yes; the Telegraph no; the Daily Mail no; the Huffington Post yes; Mic yes; and last…BuzzFeed, yes.
Merci, BuzzFeed.
What’s interesting is the lack of any real pattern – at least as far as I can discern. I was thinking recently about publications that I wouldn’t expect to publish it just because they don’t as a matter of course deal in controversial material, and I would have put USA Today in that category. But they’ve published it, apparently. If they can, the New York Fucking Times should certainly be able to do the same.
Maybe the Guardian should start posting warnings for ultra-Orthodox Jewish men above all pictures of women.
I posted it, anyway.
Al Jazeera, unsurprisingly: No.
But man, wouldn’tthat have been a kick in the crotch, both for Western media outlets that refused to post it, and for the radical Muslims who support the attack.
Seriously, Salty – Kausik just alerted me to a JP report on an Orthodox paper removing women from its photo of the Paris march – you know, women like Merkel, who was spang in the middle of that line.
@SC, #1
Differences aside, that gave me genuine pause for thought.
I wanted to say it is different, but I can’t think of any good reason why. On the face of it, the warning was not unreasonable to me, and I wrote as much on another thread.
It is a good point, well made.
I’m actually a little bit surprised, though I probably shouldn’t be. AJAM almost every commercial break shows an ad about their journalists held in detention. They should be a stronger voice for freedom of expression.
***
Wow.
And if the Guardian started warning about images of women, of course they’d have to put these trigger (ahem) warnings above pictures of gay men kissing for Christian (and other) fundamentalists. It could be a beautiful carnival of sensitivity to potential spiritual offense.
Correction: not JP but Medialite.
AJAM may not have published the cartoon, but they’re not entirely against the cause. Here’s an article warning against un-nuanced veneration of Charlie Hebdo:
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/1/charlie-hebdo-gouaillesatireislamjournalism.html
And here’s a quote:
Reproducing the imagery created by the murdered artists tends to sacralize them as embodiments of some abstract ideal of free speech. But many of the publications that today honor the dead as martyrs would yesterday have rejected their work as tasteless and obscene, as indeed it often was. The whole point of Charlie’s satire was to be tasteless and obscene, to respect no proprieties, to make its point by being untameable and incorrigible and therefore unpublishable anywhere else. The speech it exemplified was not free to express itself anywhere but in its pages. Its spirit was insurrectionist and anti-idealist, and its creators would be dumbfounded to find themselves memorialized as exemplars of a freedom that they always insisted was perpetually in danger and in need of a defense that only offensiveness could provide. To transform the shock of Charlie’s obscenities into veneration of its martyrdom is to turn the magazine into the kind of icon against which its irrepressible iconoclasm was directed. But as the poet Stéphane Mallarmé wrote of Edgar Allan Poe, death has a way of revealing the essence of things — and the essence of Charlie Hebdo was to express the inexpressible in images with the power to shock and offend.
It’s actually Mediaite. Everybody wants to add that “l.” 🙂
Whoops!
“Mediaite” – that’s a hard word to say, isn’t it, children. It sure is hard for me to say, or even to perceive.