Is it "cowardly" of British or other newspapers not to reprint various Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad and others? If so, then why is it?
These might simply not be the kind of material that a particular publication covers. Indeed, having seen them, it is impossible to think of a British publication, including Private Eye, where they would be in place. Viz? Arguably not even there.
And is is not editorial cowardice, but responsible management and employment, not to subject one's staff, by no means all of whom on a newspaper's premises have any journalistic role, to the greatly increased likelihood of a terrorist attack.
I never thought Charlie Hebdo's "satire" was all that intelligent or worthwhile to begin with. There is an important debate to be had regarding Islam but they did not take that road.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, there is a large segment of the population that seems to love their brand of “offense for the sake of offense” humor which nowadays passes for profundity.
It's cowardly if they would publish them were it not for fear of "offending Muslims".
ReplyDelete""It is not editorial cowardice, but responsible management and employment, not to subject one's staff, by no means all of whom on a newspaper's premises have any journalistic role, to the greatly increased likelihood of a terrorist attack.""
ReplyDeleteIt most certainly is. Self-censoring for fear of what Islamists mght do.
Free speech dies the day people won't stand up for it against terrorism.
We all "self-censor" all the time.
DeleteThe receptionist or the cleaner at a newspaper's office does not deserve to be blown to Kingdom Come, but precisely to be protected against any threat of such.
""it is not editorial cowardice, but responsible management and employment, not to subject one's staff, by no means all of whom on a newspaper's premises have any journalistic role, to the greatly increased likelihood of a terrorist attack.""
ReplyDeleteThat's precisely what it is. Everything we have (from science to political freedom) depends on liberty of speech and if we won't defend this fundamental principle of civilisation against savages, then we may as well give up.
Like when Shirley Williams was ripped apart on BBC Question Time for suggesting Salmond Rushdie shouldn't have received a knighthood because it would offend Muslim terrorists.
Those who do the terrorists work for them (censoring themselves for fear of provoking violence), do not deserve liberty.
You are utterly wrong on this.
"Salmond Rushdie"? Heavens, what a thought!
DeleteWe all "self-censor" all the time.
The receptionist or the cleaner at a newspaper's office does not deserve to be blown to Kingdom Come, but precisely to be protected against any threat of such.
That is an argument for surrender to terrorism.
ReplyDeleteIf we'd do anything the terrorists want to save people from being blown up then they have achieved their aim.
Even a dimwit can see that. Your argument is an argument for surrendering to lawless violence.