New ‘Charlie Hebdo’ editor scolds Chuck Todd: When you blur our cover, ‘you blur out democracy’

[Ferd Berfel]

Hear, Hear!



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/new-charlie-hebdo-editor-scolds-us-press-when-you-blur-our-cover-you-blur-out-democracy/

On Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press, Charlie Hebdo‘s new editor-in-chief admonished American media outlets for blurring the cover of this week’s issue of the controversial satirical magazine.

After recounting what it has been like for the magazine’s editorial staff in the days and weeks since the attack, Gerard Briard was asked by Chuck Todd about the Pope’s statement that “you cannot provoke, you cannot insult other people’s faith, you cannot mock it,” and that “freedom of speech is a right and a duty that must be displayed without offending.”

“Every time we draw a cartoon of Muḥammad,” Briard replied, “every time we draw a cartoon of the prophet, every time we draw a cartoon of God, we defend the freedom of religion. We declare that God must not be a political public figure, but that he must be a private figure.”

(snip)


“What they must understand,” Briard continued, “is that when they blur it out — when they decline to publish it — they blur out democracy, secularism, freedom of religion, and they insult the citizenship.”

[NYC_SKP]

1. Um, no. Freedom of speech and of the press protects MSMBC's decision to blur it.

Gerard Briard would have us think that it's a duty, I say it's a choice for the press.

I agree with him that attacking hypocrisy is a noble thing for him to do, AND I agree with the Pope that it's not necessary to be offensive.

This is an interesting dilemma but it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

I'm all about subtleties.

[Ferd Berfel]

2. Blurring that image = cowardice

Yes, MSNBC gets to decide that they don't even have to address the story or issue. But showing the object of the controversy Blurred, in the context of "News" is cowardly.

[seabeyond]

3. we have american sniper to get our hate on muslims....

[HappyMe]

4. People and newspapers have the right

to decide if it should be blurred or not. People then have the right to call them cowards if they don't like it. That's how it works. By now I'm sure everybody and his brother has seen the cartoons.

[NYC_SKP]

7. They do the same thing with images of corpses and mayhem.

There's not a thing wrong with respecting the sensitivities of a minority.

Hebdo is just pissed that their little campaign isn't getting the boost he'd like for it to, IMO.

[Ferd Berfel]

22. False equivalent

[seabeyond]

5. i agree. there is not black and white... about this issue. i appreciate people that

can see the bigger picture. myopic thinking for some.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Thank you. And the editor is a fool, in this case.

He says:

“Every time we draw a cartoon of Muḥammad,” Briard replied, “every time we draw a cartoon of the prophet, every time we draw a cartoon of God, we defend the freedom of religion. We declare that God must not be a political public figure, but that he must be a private figure.”

"God must not be a political public figure... he must be a private figure"...

So what does he do? He makes him a public AND a political figure.

It's a very customized and convenient interpretation, for him.

It's nonsense.

[seabeyond]

8. i agree. i have found the hypocrisy consistent in the arguments. this approach

is what i see so often in other issues which for me is the opposite of what they say out loud.

it reminds me of 911. how the rw engineered the argument for hate toward muslims. this is only the left wing engineering of hate toward muslims. and they are yelling that not only should it be allowed, we all must participate, just like during 911.

[HappyMe]

9. You do have a good point there.

As does seabeyond's post 5.

It isn't as black and white as people think it is.

[ND-Dem]

24. agree

[ND-Dem]

23. that's what americans are always told; there's freedom of the press, but the press is under

no obligation to publish (whatever it is).

suits the oligarchs down to their shoes, since "the press" is owned by 6 megacorporations anyway.

[chrisa]

10. It's like the people who kissed the Nazis' asses in the vain hope that they wouldn't kill them.

Dear American news media - they're going to kill you anyways. It doesn't matter if you blur the Charlie Hebdo cover out. They still hate you. They hate everyone who isn't an extremist Muslim. Heck, they even hate other extremist Muslims.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Or, it's like "we WILL report this, but we are NOT going to help you by showing your cartoon"

The editor haz a sad because his cartoon was blurred and the media mutiplier effect was killed by blurring the image.

No ass-kissing here. NOT blurring the image would have been taking sides every bit as much as blurring it.

They reported on the matter, they did their job.

Their job is NOT to do the work of the publisher by publishing the cartoon.

See what I mean?

[HappyMe]

12. Just as the editor of CH doesn't want to be told

what they can and cannot publish, other editors probably don't care what this guy thinks should be published.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. Democracy?

I seem to have missed the vote on what their cover should have on it. Or was the vote only open to French citizens?

Here's a hint - what a privately owned magazine chooses to put on its cover is not a matter of 'Democracy'.

[seabeyond]

14. further, this magazine was hardly seen. and now they have the world stage and circulation

making a hauling with others death.

people did not buy it for a reason. and the reason they buy it now, is not the content.

[randome]

15. Anyone know the names of those who were killed? Probably not.

I mean, who cares, right? "I am {insert corporate logo here}" is enough, isn't it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Waiting For Everyman]

16. Political correctness is the antithesis of free speech.

These Islamist wingut self-proclaimed Thought Police enforcers are psychotic / sociopathic vigilates, no better than George Zimmerman. These terrorists ARE, themselves, racists. Their agenda is proof that they are incapable of being citizens or even residents in a western democracy.

Islamic wingnuts shouldn't be catered to any more than the American religious right variety.

I'm glad that at least here, the US has not gone as far as Europe has, down the slippery slope of criminalizing free speech. This appears to have been the beginning of a wake up call in Europe, as to why that is a very bad idea. At least that's one pitfall, for once, that the US didn't dive into headlong.

I agree with Briard 100%.

[NYC_SKP]

17. More a matter of demonstrating good taste, sensitivity, neutrality.

.
MSNBC is within their First Amendment rights to report the story, or not, and to blur the image, or not.

That they reported the story is commendable, and being sensitive to anyone who might be offended is VERY commendable.

But the most commendable thing is that by blurring the image, they remained NEUTRAL; the didn't give the image more press than it deserved.

Good for them, and Briard is just an ordinary Capitalist trying to make a buck, trying to make more press by making a stink.

[Waiting For Everyman]

18. It could be

a surprisingly short hop from choosing to blur the pictures, to being required by law to blur the pictures. THEN, we have a problem. All that would take is for enough peoples' "sensibilities" to harden into laws that everyone must comply with the pc majority view, without a choice.

That isn't hard to imagine.

Yes, any media outlet can (for now) choose to blur the images. But Briard's point is that in choosing to do so, they are knuckling under to the attitudes that killed those people on his staff so recently, AND they are failing to stand up for the democratic principle for which they died.

I for one, think that's pretty shitty and cowardly, on the part of a fellow media outlet. And I think Briard was very civil in the way he made the point. It needed to be said.

Being neutral toward religious terrorism is not in the least commendable.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Would you suggest that by law they be REQUIRED not to blur the image, then?

We can't have it both ways.

The blurring was a free choice, supported by the First Amendment just as not-blurring it would have been.

[Waiting For Everyman]

21. Of course not, coercion is undemocratic, either way.

It is a free choice, subject to criticism. I have said why I think the choice made was a mistake and said why, and so did Briard. That's as it should be, and how it should stay. But those who the media outlets are being fair to, would not have it so. And that is the point, it's what CH's cartoon was created to say in the first place.

CH drew a cartoon to express its views. The terrorists expressed theirs with murder. Murder is not free speech, it is feudalistic oppression, and that is exactly what the principles in constitutional democracies were designed to prevent.

Even if some people disagree with CH, this is an entirely insensitive time to push that point, in the wake of these murders.

If the left sides with the Islamist position on this, it is making a HUGE mistake. Not only politically, but in terms of democratic principles which cannot be sacrified, even for what seems to be a "good cause".

[Kablooie]

19. He is saying the US media doesn't have the right to their views.

Only his view should be freely expressed.

No.

He is free to his view and the media is free to censor it if they don't want to propagate it.
That is their expression of free speech.

They may not like your views and you may not like theirs and neither is obligated to expose people to views they don't agree with.