Paris: what’s the optimal media response?
[ by Charles Cameron — “publish and be damned” is one thing, “publish and be dead” is quite another! ]
.
Sigh. There are two ways or the media to respond in a situation like this, one of which is to defend freedom of speech by asserting it, while the other seeks to minimize the inflammation. Here they are, as examplified in two tweets from two journalists today:
. @Telegraph's blurring out of Muhammad cartoons – while reporting on massacre targeting same creators of those cartoons – is a betrayal.
— Brooklyn Middleton (@BklynMiddleton) January 7, 2015
the @Telegraph blurring cartoons while reporting is a very sensitive and mature move. Thank you
— ceylan ozbudak (@ceylanozbudak) January 7, 2015
Does the question of which approach is better seem too obvious to require an answer?
Which approach do you prefer, and why?
**
I’m an Old School Brit and wouldn’t use this language at the office, but I tend to agree with John Schindler‘s sentiments here:
Charlie Hebdo are kind of assholes. Van Gogh was definitely one. In the West, being an asshole is a cherished right. One we all must defend.
— John Schindler (@20committee) January 7, 2015
More generally, I don’t think we think nearly enough about the second and third order effects of our media responses to acts of terror.
Cheryl Rofer:
January 8th, 2015 at 12:54 am
I saw another sequence of tweets this morning – sorry, not from someone I follow, so I don’t recall – from an editor of a publication. The general drift was yes, I am entirely for freedom to print offensive material, but I am responsible for a staff of people who have families and who have a right to live. I have to balance the two, and it’s not easy. I have more sympathy for that than for “one or the other.”
.
I kind of agreed with that tweet of Schindler’s, but, like so much he tweets, there are no specifics. It’s the kind of thing that lets you beat your chest and feel good, but isn’t much help when you face a situation in real life.
.
Ross Douthat said something similar, but with more nuance.
Charles Cameron:
January 8th, 2015 at 5:06 pm
Good stuff, Cheryl.
.
Do you read John Schindler’s blog-posts? I think his tweets are mostly pointers to more detailed work elsewhere.
Cheryl Rofer:
January 8th, 2015 at 11:33 pm
I do read Schindler’s blog posts, which indeed are better than his tweet stream, which often seems to be designed to provoke, or perhaps is just a gripe stream. Schindler’s blog posts combine a particular type of expertise with a great many admonitions that everyone had better listen to him. He could use an editor who would take the latter out. The expertise part is pretty good, although I find some of it not quite on. Or at least different from some of the things I’ve learned. At this point, Schindler would challenge me to prove my expertise, and I would demur. Another way in which I find him not quite on.
.
And here’s another good commentary, maybe the best I’ve seen so far, on the topic of your post.
.
Money quote: “[D]efending the right of someone to say whatever they like does not oblige you to repeat their words.”
Charles Cameron:
January 9th, 2015 at 1:33 am
There are aspects of John’s tone that I allow to fly right past me, since it’s the expertise I’m after : )
.
All in all, I’ve come to like him quite a bit.