Irish newspapers ne sont pas Charlie....

FrenchHomeSwap

Have to say that it's humiliating to be anglophone in France at the moment.

A quick perusal of world newspapers, Thursday (and I can't give links, since I haven't reached my fifty posts!) shows: virtually all of the German, Danish and Dutch newspapers; many Spanish and some Portuguese printed Charlie Hebdo cartoons in solidarity with the murdered cartoonists on their front pages. Not to offend, but to defend press freedom.

Nothing in Ireland that I could find (an article reporting legal threats if anyone 'dared' in the Times, though) and lots of mealy-mouthed, equivocation about not 'giving offence' throughout the Anglophone world.

Some notable exceptions (the daily beast and the huffington post, for example). But over all. Press Freedom and Free Speech are dead in Ireland. The NUJ should shut up shop.

The Irish defence of freedom of the press is as pitiable as their defence of privacy, it appears.

IRE60

I'd agree with you there. The publishers are 'hiding' behind blasphemy laws that they suggest they would fall foul of. Which is rubbish. I

BlatentCheek

Pathetic. Especially considering they usually attempt to justify their shameless muckraking with a public interest defence.

Raspberry Fileds

IT editorialised about it and Martyn Turner had a cartoon. Ireland doesn't have a vibrant cartoon culture. I don't think it that big a deal if they didn't have one on their front page.

IRE60

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

IT editorialised about it and Martyn Turner had a cartoon. Ireland doesn't have a vibrant cartoon culture. I don't think it that big a deal if they didn't have one on their front page.

I think the point was that we bleeted on about freedom of speech, but yet, even in the context of a story about the cartoon - no Irish paper reproduced it. As a adjunct to the story about the killings surly it would have been justified to show exactly what was behind the killings?
But no, the Mail today railed against the current law on P1. Fella from Civil Liberties yesterday said the publications, in the context of this story, would not trip up*.
But the sh1t running down their legs got in the way of their thinking , IMO.

*if i picked him up correctly.

IRE60

Section 26 of the current act says that one could apply the defence of publishing (an otherwise blasphemous article (picture of cartoon)) if

26.— (1) It shall be a defence (to be known, and in this section referred to, as the “ defence of fair and reasonable publication ”) to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that—

(a) the statement in respect of which the action was brought was published—

(i) in good faith, and

(ii) in the course of, or for the purpose of, the discussion of a subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit,

(b) in all of the circumstances of the case, the manner and extent of publication of the statement did not exceed that which was reasonably sufficient, and

(c) in all of the circumstances of the case, it was fair and reasonable to publish the statement.

clear thinking

Actually cant believe it, the indo have Wednesdays cover, albeit online. http://m.independent.ie/world-news/europe/up-to-3-million-copies-of-new-charlie-hebdo-edition-to-carry-cartoon-of-prophet-mohammad-30902471.html

expectationlost

IRE60 wrote: »

I think the point was that we bleeted on about freedom of speech, but yet, even in the context of a story about the cartoon - no Irish paper reproduced it. As a adjunct to the story about the killings surly it would have been justified to show exactly what was behind the killings?

France bombing Iraq, and a magazine office being an easier target then a French military base?

AngryHippie

It would be a little hypocritical of the Irish press to jump on the bandwagon on this one. While it is fine for individuals to step up and be counted for freedom of expression, there is no reason why every publication should suddenly react by rushing their cartoons into print.
Personally, I don't find them to be that funny, while their intent is satirical, I can see how many Muslims find it offensive.
Should it be illegal, no.
Should the publishers be threatened, menaced or murdered because of it, no.

That does not mean that the entire western press has some sort of duty to rush to their moral support by re-publishing the images.
There is nothing to be ashamed of, it is being reported, it is being written about and that is where the solidarity lies, not in parroting the same images across the world as a nose-thumb to Muslims everywhere. It's called sensitivity, and the Irish press have always been forced to exhibit it due to previous experience with religious organizations.

I seriously doubt the shareholders of INM etc. would be to keen to rely on round the clock security and constant monitoring by AGS to ensure their survival either, but I doubt that had much influence on the editorial decisions.

IRE60

But, its the double standards that get me. The same publication 'hid' behind blasphemy laws in an attempt to justify the non-publication of the first cartoon that seemingly sparked off the shootings.

But now, a couple of days later, they see fit to publish this one (online in any case) which is really no different, perhaps in terms of offence to some Muslims, to the first.

I still stand by the "public interest" line on this one is the sh1t rolling down their legs didn't distract their decision making in the first place we'd be arguing differently.

Pedalare Pedalare!

Can't get over the media publishing these covers in an attempt to seem edgy and pro-free speech. Same crowds never stick their necks above the parapet with domestic issues.

FrenchHomeSwap

There's an excellent article in the Guardian by Nick Cohen about the 'cowardice so total that it lacks the courage to admit it is afraid' (I can't link to it, but worth a read); if you read it, have a look BTL and you'll see that the Guardian has been taking lots of flack over their position (which was to claim that they didn't publish the cartoons because they're offensive). However, Charlie Hebdo is a very small circulation magazine so it's fair to say that it probably doesn't reflect the position of many French people either; the point of publishing the cartoons, however, was twofold: public interest (newsworthiness: people died, it is very relevant and therefore, in the public interest, to know why they were deemed targets) and secondly, to take a stance on liberty of expression/press freedom: thus, these arguments could be seen to supercede considerations of taste or offence. If you read the editorial in the Guardian as to why they're publishing the latest cover, there's the suggestion that a lot of world-class newspapers have decided to publish the latest cover, thus the relative risk will be shouldered more broadly... (This would be why, in my opinion, Irish papers are rowing in behind them, diluted risk) However, it's a bit late for the newspaper in Germany that was firebombed, and any others that have gone out on a limb over the issue by publishing earlier. I think it's quite problematic, because to a certain extent, the UK Independent line of coming out and saying last week: 'well, I'm afraid for all my staff, I'd love to publish, but no other newspapers are doing so and I don't want to be singled out,' is valid, in that, at least it was honest. And for me, this is the nub of the issue: there's a huge amount of dishonesty and posturing about why newspapers are not publishing. But being honest and not publishing, doesn't help those that chose to be brave! I think the Robert Crumb cartoon sums it up well. (can't link to that either!)

expectationlost

FrenchHomeSwap wrote: »

There's an excellent article in the Guardian by Nick Cohen about the 'cowardice so total that it lacks the courage to admit it is afraid' (I can't link to it, but worth a read); if you read it, have a look BTL and you'll see that the Guardian has been taking lots of flack over their position (which was to claim that they didn't publish the cartoons because they're offensive). However, Charlie Hebdo is a very small circulation magazine so it's fair to say that it probably doesn't reflect the position of many French people either; the point of publishing the cartoons, however, was twofold: public interest (newsworthiness: people died, it is very relevant and therefore, in the public interest, to know why they were deemed targets) and secondly, to take a stance on liberty of expression/press freedom: thus, these arguments could be seen to supercede considerations of taste or offence.

what was on the cover of the magazine in last months issue?

I understand that if there's a picture to be printed a newspaper will almost always print it, so by not doing so they were making a judgment call, The news that day was actually the attacks, I don't think reprinting the cartoons is brave I think its lazy, if the papers want to write or get their cartoonists to draw something on the subject they should but it shouldn't be done just for spiteful revenge. They are not Charlie, I am not Charlie and neither are you Charlie. Let Charlie do what Charlie does. Don't pretend to be them. Some newspapers have published a collection of the cartoons on the inside pages, not sure if any Irish papers has done that?

ah yes Nick Cohen the columnist who personified the 'cruise missile left' in the UK and cheerleaded the illegal invasion of Iraq.

FrenchHomeSwap

It's a weekly magazine (hebdo: hebdomadaire -- hebdomadal, in english), not monthly; the last cover was a caricature of Houellebecq dressed up a wizard in reference to his latest book.

The news that day was certainly the attacks, but the motivation for the attacks (earlier covers) would fall within the realms of public interest, an important criterion of newsworthiness, hence the impetus to re-print them. As for publishing being the 'lazy option', this position is new to me. Do you mean in the sense of it being easier to fill space with a picture than write the corresponding quantity of text? And that those that printed the offending cartoons were simply too lazy to get someone to describe them verbally instead? Because, I have always found it helpful to see pictures rather than read descriptions of them. So if it is 'lazy', it is also effective as an aid to understanding (but I only speak for myself). If you mean lazy in the intellectual sense, as in those that published them, did so without reflection; the fact that the CH editorial team was decimated for producing such cartoons might have preyed on their minds, I suspect.

As for 'spiteful revenge', I hardly think that a simple cartoon can reasonably be qualified as any kind of vengence for so many murders, but perhaps you have greater faith in the might of the pen than I.

For the record, I do not, and have never claimed to be Charlie, I simply don't have their courage (or indeed share all of their convictions), but I fully understand why people would wish to identify themselves with their evident promulgation of freedom of expression, in the wake of such an onslaught. In contrast, 'I am Charlie' was all over the banners of the Irish newspapers, who clearly were not 'Charlie' in their outlook. So we certainly concur on that point.

With regards to Nick Cohen, one is not obliged to share all of a columnist's views to agree with him for a specific article; I am not seeking to recommend his opus, merely a single essay.

So on balance, I feel we are not in agreement on the subject.
But this, being a democracy, is life (and should certainly not mean death)

flogen

I don't buy this argument that news outlets are hypocritical if they support the right for others to publish something but opt not to publish it themselves.

That's not how free speech works and arguably people's support of it is only truly tested when they're asked to defend others' right to say/do something they disagree with or wouldn't do themselves.

I don't know the real reason why these places decided not to publish the Muhammad cartoons - maybe it was fear, or the blasphemy laws, or maybe they just didn't see the joke or satirical point. But the assumption that they're automatically cowards for not doing it is a bit silly.

FrenchHomeSwap

I would have thought that the context is very relevant though: Since so many people died as a consequence of the cartoons being published, they are very pertinent to the public's understanding of the news story (especially if cartooning is not a vibrant culture in Ireland, as claimed above), thus it would seem to me that at the very least, a convincing justification is warranted for not publishing them; the role of a media outlet being to inform the public of the news. Simply not publishing them because they're 'not funny' or 'poor satire' would seem like a dereliction of duty.

In 'opting out', the relevant outlets are saying: (for example) the offence given by the cartoons to a particular sector exceeds the public right to know why these people died; the knock-on effect being the suppression of information to the general readership (which is of course the very definition of censorship). Thus surely if a media outlet is choosing to exercise such censorship, it is more than a tad hypocritical to claim that they are 'Charlie' and fully support freedom of expression as exemplified in the precise organ that they, themselves, are opting to censor? Indeed, if their rationale is that the cartoon is too offensive to be viewed by a particular sector of their readership, would it not then be hypocritical anyway to wholeheartedly condone its publication elsewhere?

IRE60

flogen wrote: »

I don't buy this argument that news outlets are hypocritical if they support the right for others to publish something but opt not to publish it themselves.

That's not how free speech works and arguably people's support of it is only truly tested when they're asked to defend others' right to say/do something they disagree with or wouldn't do themselves.

I don't know the real reason why these places decided not to publish the Muhammad cartoons - maybe it was fear, or the blasphemy laws, or maybe they just didn't see the joke or satirical point. But the assumption that they're automatically cowards for not doing it is a bit silly.

flogen, I understand the arguement: You have to publish the cartoons because look what they did. That's not allowing editorial choice, its in a way forcing the hand from the 'free speech' brigade.

However, the I.I and D.M. went out of their way to say that they were precluded from reprinting the cartoons because of our laws and "its not out fault etc...."

Thats the bit I have the hump about. Say, "we decided not to publish them because.... " but don't cower behind the legislation (that in my opinion would have given them the out to publish anyway)

flogen

IRE60 wrote: »

However, the I.I and D.M. went out of their way to say that they were precluded from reprinting the cartoons because of our laws and "its not out fault etc...."

Thats the bit I have the hump about. Say, "we decided not to publish them because.... " but don't cower behind the legislation (that in my opinion would have given them the out to publish anyway)

That's fair enough - I'm inclined to agree that the legislation is fuzzy enough to allow an outlet to get away with publication.

And had someone taken a challenge on the matter it actually might have helped draw attention to how badly blasphemy needs to be removed from the law books.

flogen

FrenchHomeSwap wrote: »

I would have thought that the context is very relevant though: Since so many people died as a consequence of the cartoons being published, they are very pertinent to the public's understanding of the news story (especially if cartooning is not a vibrant culture in Ireland, as claimed above), thus it would seem to me that at the very least, a convincing justification is warranted for not publishing them; the role of a media outlet being to inform the public of the news. Simply not publishing them because they're 'not funny' or 'poor satire' would seem like a dereliction of duty.

I don't think they needed to be published for people to understand the story - that's borne out by the fact that few (if any) mainstream publications in Ireland or Britain did so and yet the public seem to have had no trouble getting to grips with what happened (as the various marches in support of the French people show)

In 'opting out', the relevant outlets are saying: (for example) the offence given by the cartoons to a particular sector exceeds the public right to know why these people died; the knock-on effect being the suppression of information to the general readership (which is of course the very definition of censorship).

These people didn't die because of a cartoon - they died because a handful of people became radicalised to the point that they felt justified to kill those who offended them.

Thus surely if a media outlet is choosing to exercise such censorship, it is more than a tad hypocritical to claim that they are 'Charlie' and fully support freedom of expression as exemplified in the precise organ that they, themselves, are opting to censor?

Indeed, if their rationale is that the cartoon is too offensive to be viewed by a particular sector of their readership, would it not then be hypocritical anyway to wholeheartedly condone its publication elsewhere?

Again, to truly support free speech you have to support others' right to say something that you would not... or that you might actually be strongly opposed to.

And I disagree that the newspapers failing to publish the cartoon is 'censorship' - it seems to be more of an editorial decision on what's relevant to the story and what's not.

FrenchHomeSwap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flogen
I don't think they needed to be published for people to understand the story - that's borne out by the fact that few (if any) mainstream publications in Ireland or Britain did so and yet the public seem to have had no trouble getting to grips with what happened (as the various marches in support of the French people show)

'Google', of course, is another possible explanation for this phenomenon: it's interesting too how many proponents of the media's right to 'opt out' have themselves 'opted in' and googled the cartoons, implying by their actions a deficiency in the coverage.


Quote:
These people didn't die because of a cartoon - they died because a handful of people became radicalised to the point that they felt justified to kill those who offended them.

I applaud the sentiment that terrorists kill, not cartoons. However, there is also the reality that if the cartoons hadn't been published, the radicals in question would have chosen other targets; making the cartoons integral to the story.

Quote:
Again, to truly support free speech you have to support others' right to say something that you would not... or that you might actually be strongly opposed to.

Indeed, and there were lots of world leaders at the Paris march 'truly supporting free speech' too, I was not alone in thinking that many of them weren't Charlie, either. However, in their defence, they didn't drape themselves in 'I am Charlie banners'; and the sales in Paris always justify a visit at this time of year.

Quote:
And I disagree that the newspapers failing to publish the cartoon is 'censorship' - it seems to be more of an editorial decision on what's relevant to the story and what's not.

Wikipedia begs to differ though: 'Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.' This seems to me to be a textbook case; although you are of course free to call it 'opting out'.

If it was an editorial decision that the cartoons were irrelevant to the story, I would indeed fear for the judgement of Irish journalists, but I say this from the perspective of someone who has seen them. Perhaps you have not 'opted in'?

IRE60

I really all depends on your idea of "suppression". Is the veiled threat of terrorists visiting your doorstep on foot of publication a form of suppression.

I am in no doubt that some (many) publications took the decision not to publish, not on any of moral grounds that publication of the cartoon might offend a particular strata in Irish Society, but simply based on risk and the possibility of retaliation at some point in the future.

And just to deviate slightly: Paddy Prendiville editor of the Phoenix wrote and article in the current edition entitled "Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie". In it he outlined how some people/business/publications jumping on the free speech wagon are hugely two faced. He writes:

"Goldhawk has in his possession many thick files of legal correspondence that testify to exactly how committed Ireland’s establishment is to satire and a robust free press"

It's a great article outlining how free we are, in reality, to voice our opinions. The funniest being that a famous musician's lawyer once threatened the publication that they would use the Offences Against the State Act to stop them reporting on a trial they the musician was involved in!

Worth a read and takes a different slant that hasn't been aired too much.

flogen

'Google', of course, is another possible explanation for this phenomenon: it's interesting too how many proponents of the media's right to 'opt out' have themselves 'opted in' and googled the cartoons, implying by their actions a deficiency in the coverage.

Can you quantify that?

I applaud the sentiment that terrorists kill, not cartoons. However, there is also the reality that if the cartoons hadn't been published, the radicals in question would have chosen other targets; making the cartoons integral to the story.

Well you're saying that as if media outlets have completely removed any reference to the cartoons, which they haven't. As I said before, I don't think people needed to see the offending cartoons in order to understand that they made Charlie... a target.

This is not an uncommon occurrence in media, with outlets often opting not to publish certain images/videos (for other reasons, in many cases) despite them being central to a story.

Indeed, and there were lots of world leaders at the Paris march 'truly supporting free speech' too, I was not alone in thinking that many of them weren't Charlie, either. However, in their defence, they didn't drape themselves in 'I am Charlie banners'; and the sales in Paris always justify a visit at this time of year.

I think the hypocracy - or otherwise - of world leaders standing up for Charlie is another thing... particularly in cases where they stand over laws and legal systems that allow the prohibition of certain forms of expression.

I'd include the French government in that too.

Wikipedia begs to differ though: 'Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.' This seems to me to be a textbook case; although you are of course free to call it 'opting out'.

Well if Wikipedia says it...!

As IRE60, it largely comes down to what you think in suppression - and also what the real motive was of those opting not to publish.

It may well have been self-censorship, but as my original post says, in many cases we can only speculate and it is foolish to immediately assume cowardice and hypocrisy as a result.