Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamenspiel
The media was not publishing because they were afraid of the consequences, bad taste is not a decision point for media. It could be physical fear, it could be for the protection of their employees in the middle east, or it could just be fear of the commercial implications.
Some of the international news organizations even admitted that prior to the killings in Paris, it was thought that a local paper like Charlie Hebdo was safe because they did not have a mideast bureau and had no interests or employees to protect.
The fact is that the status quo was a change in behavior(a censored press), and they did have all the power. The idea is to change that and get back to discussing and writting about ideas, rather then killing for them. So its an escalation towards a free press, besides that the new cover is completely benign, a very positive message.
|
Of course bad taste is a decision point for the media. It's exactly why most mainstream media sources refrain from printing material that would be considered offensive. Sure, there could be commercial implications that affect their decisions, but the same is true for Charlie Hebdo. If they weren't making money, I doubt they would have been as provocative as they were. And the new cover of Charlie Hebdo is completely irrelevant. NAMBLA could publish something with kittens in a basket, but it wouldn't make it worth distributing.
Don't confuse a censored press with one that is just self-moderated. Remember that freedom of speech also includes the freedom to not speak.