Gun attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo kills 11

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think that most mainstream media choosing not to show the images had anything to do with being afraid. The images were in poor taste to begin with. By showing them, they would be alienating a large portion of their viewers and that is simply bad for business. The media just like every other aspect of capitalist society, is in the business of making money first and foremost, not making statements.


It's sounds like this decision from the CH artists had as much to do with thwarting the accusations of racism and the decision for the media not to print the images based on those accusations rather than threats of violence.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't think that most mainstream media choosing not to show the images had anything to do with being afraid. The images were in poor taste to begin with. By showing them, they would be alienating a large portion of their viewers and that is simply bad for business. The media just like every other aspect of capitalist society, is in the business of making money first and foremost, not making statements.

Seriously? You don't think that the audience of literally every news outlet, no matter their viewpoint, was interested in seeing the material that led to the murder of eleven people? I can absolutely guarantee that they did. The content of the magazine has absolutely no bearing on the analysis of the actions, but the illustration itself was certainly newsworthy. I honestly don't know how you can come to any other conclusion.

[Thor]

On a more positive note, Iceland thanks to our humanist group and my pirate party managed to legalize blasphemy, which was part in response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33378778

Iceland's parliament has abolished its blasphemy laws, despite opposition from some of the country's churches.
A bill was put forward by the minority Pirate Party, which campaigns for internet and data freedom.
It came after the deadly attack the same month against French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
The bill said it was "essential in a free society that the public can express themselves without fear of punishment".
As three members of the Pirate Party stood before parliament on Thursday, each said: "Je Suis Charlie", an expression used globally to express solidarity with the Charlie Hebdo victims.
After the ruling, the party wrote on its blog (in Icelandic): "Iceland's parliament has now established the important message that freedom will not give in to bloody attacks."
The blasphemy law had been in place since 1940, and anyone found guilty could have been sentenced to a fine or three months in prison.

The Pirate Party
The Pirate movement was formed in Sweden in 2006 and has since spread to more than 60 countries.
None has seen as much success as the Icelandic branch, which says it is an "international political force fighting for genuine transparency and accountability in government".
In the 2013 election, it gained three MPs for the first time, and polls now say it is the most popular party in Iceland, with the support of 32.4% of the country.
In 2013, its members drafted a law calling for whistleblower Edward Snowden to be granted Icelandic citizenship.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Seriously? You don't think that the audience of literally every news outlet, no matter their viewpoint, was interested in seeing the material that led to the murder of eleven people? I can absolutely guarantee that they did. The content of the magazine has absolutely no bearing on the analysis of the actions, but the illustration itself was certainly newsworthy. I honestly don't know how you can come to any other conclusion.

Most Muslims probably weren't interested in seeing it and they make up a significant and affluent minority. It has always been the case that newspapers and television networks walk the line that tries to offend the least number of people as possible. Stuff that might be newsworthy is constantly left out or censored if it is considered obscene or offensive. It was like that before the shooting as well.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I think you're completely out to lunch - news organizations will offend anyone and everyone if the controversy results in higher viewership, and the vast majority of their viewership wanted to see what it was that provoked a mass murder. Do you really think that the first reaction of the average viewer was anything other than, "what the hell did they print"? Even knowing full well that it doesn't even matter what they printed, I wanted to see it too.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I agree with Corsi. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine, it is all about controversy and pushing buttons. Curious, are images of Jesus now off limits for that publication? Political figures? It really doesn't make sense.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think you're completely out to lunch - news organizations will offend anyone and everyone if the controversy results in higher viewership, and the vast majority of their viewership wanted to see what it was that provoked a mass murder. Do you really think that the first reaction of the average viewer was anything other than, "what the hell did they print"? Even knowing full well that it doesn't even matter what they printed, I wanted to see it too.

The news stations described what was printed which is all they were obligated to do. It's like when a sex video comes out, just because it will prompt some people to want to see it, it doesn't mean that the news station needs to show it just to please those people.

To a large number of people, the images were considered obscene. Mainstream media outlets and television networks try to report while offending the least number of people as possible. Their MO isn't the same as Charlie Hebdo. To me, this is no different than conservatives complaining that the Daily Show doesn't give equal time to their cause. The CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, Charlie Hebdo, The National Post... basically any media satirical or otherwise, all have principles on what they will and will not show. Just because some crazies go out and shoot people, it doesn't mean they should change their principles one way or another. (That goes for Charlie Hebdo as well).

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I agree with Corsi. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine, it is all about controversy and pushing buttons. Curious, are images of Jesus now off limits for that publication? Political figures? It really doesn't make sense.

There was a thing in the NY Times where they published an offensive picture of Pope Benedict, but refused to publish pictures of Muhammad 'out of respect'. They finally came out and admitted that backlash from Christians isn't as bad, so that's why they chose one over the other.

I guess if you're offended by something, slice a few throats and blow up some buildings and people will start respecting your views...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^Respect and fear are, obviously, very different things.

No one but devout muslims would consider the images obscene. At worst, the vast majority of the population might consider them offensive. Comparing them to a sex tape is a failed analogy on two fronts. First, a sex tape is rarely newsworthy, except as sort of a tabloidesque attempt to generate traffic. Second, if a sex tape WERE newsworthy (e.g. if there was a sex tape of Barack Obama having sex with a foreign leader), the only thing preventing that from being shown would be puritanical attitudes about sex that are ingrained in American culture. It's not a comparable situation.

Frankly I find it very interesting but at the same time difficult to grasp that anyone thinks that the reason that the Hebdo images or the Danish cartoons weren't shown by most publications was anything other than fear of reprisal... especially since the news organizations themselves, where they did comment, said that that WAS the reason. Understandably so. A news outlet has a responsibility to keep its employees safe.

[FlamesAddiction]

The primary motive for most if not all mainstream media sources (print or television) is to sell ad space. They do this by trying to maintain a happy and long time loyal viewer/readership. You can't think of them (the media) as altruistic vehicles for truth and activism.

That is the issue here. What would a network like CTV or a paper like the Globe and Mail have to gain by showing the images? Perhaps an immediate spike in interest from the public, followed by long term resentment from a large minority of subscribers? Given that the images were widely available on the internet if someone needed some context, what would they really have to gain? I don't think your love and admiration is worth as much to them as cold hard cash.

[Zarley]

NSFW!

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-o...is-image-29553

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Zarley

NSFW!

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-o...is-image-29553

Oh man, that is golden.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Considering Russia does have a tenancy to assassinate people, maybe not a good move?

The Kremlin on Friday angrily condemned France's Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine for publishing political cartoons on the Egypt plane crash in which 224 people died, most of them Russian tourists.

"In our country we can sum this up in a single word: sacrilege," President Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists.

"This has nothing to do with democracy or self-expression. It is sacrilege."

The Kremlin spokesman called the cartoons "unacceptable" but said Russia would not make an official complaint.

One cartoon shows debris and human remains raining down on an armed IS militant, with the caption: "IS: Russian aviation is intensifying bombardments," a reference to its air strikes in Syria.

Another shows a skull with a pair of sunglasses hanging off it with the crashed plane in the background.

It is titled "The dangers of Russian low-cost airlines", and the speech bubble says "I should have taken Air Cocaine," a reference to a current scandal over French pilots smuggling drugs from the Dominican Republic.

https://in.news.yahoo.com/kremlin-sl...114812595.html

[2Stonedbirds]

The US would've said the same thing if a cartoon was made showing bodies falling from the WTC with the caption "The fruits of US foreign policy".

Bad taste? Sure. But allah damn it they should be able to print it.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

The US would've said the same thing if a cartoon was made showing bodies falling from the WTC with the caption "The fruits of US foreign policy".

Bad taste? Sure. But allah damn it they should be able to print it.

I'm not sure to be honest and I mean in sincerely, not in a debating style.
I realize there's a freedom of speech, but the declaration of human rights says:

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.


I'm not sure if such pictures show respect to those people who lost relatives in the plane crash. I am also not sure whether making fun out of people tragic deathes meets the "just requirements of morality".

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I'm not sure to be honest and I mean in sincerely, not in a debating style.
I realize there's a freedom of speech, but the declaration of human rights says:

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.


I'm not sure if such pictures show respect to those people who lost relatives in the plane crash. I am also not sure whether making fun out of people tragic deathes meets the "just requirements of morality".

I don't know much about Charlie Hebdo, but to me it seems they just put out controversial stuff for the sake of putting out controversial stuff. They remind me of a bad comedian who uses shock tactics because he's got no substance.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I don't know much about Charlie Hebdo, but to me it seems they just put out controversial stuff for the sake of putting out controversial stuff. They remind me of a bad comedian who uses shock tactics because he's got no substance.

Yup this comes off as petty and completely in poor taste.

Disgusting.

It's one thing to make fun a religion or symbol and it's completely different to make fun of a tragic plane crash where 200 people, children amongst them, lost their lives.

Someone should print a cartoon making fun of their office shooting and see how they respond.

####ing ignorant twats.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I don't know much about Charlie Hebdo, but to me it seems they just put out controversial stuff for the sake of putting out controversial stuff. They remind me of a bad comedian who uses shock tactics because he's got no substance.

The vast majority of people don't argue that Charlie Hebdo is tasteful or even funny. They should still have a right to print whatever they want though, as long as it's not actually encouraging/causing physical harm to others.

[polak]

Originally Posted by blankall

The vast majority of people don't argue that Charlie Hebdo is tasteful or even funny. They should still have a right to print whatever they want though, as long as it's not actually encouraging/causing physical harm to others.

Again. Someone should make a comic about their office shooting.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by blankall

The vast majority of people don't argue that Charlie Hebdo is tasteful or even funny. They should still have a right to print whatever they want though, as long as it's not actually encouraging/causing physical harm to others.

Their cartoons about Mohammad caused some hubbub a while ago.