zenpundit.com

[ 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.

[ by Charles Cameron — with application to today’s tragic massacre in Paris, to IS, AQ, Breivik, whoever ]
.

.

That’s George Smiley describing Karla‘s fatal flaw, in the crucial scene from Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, the film version with Gary Oldman as George Smiley.

We are not so very different, you and I. We’ve both spent our lives looking for the weaknesses in one another’s systems. Don’t you think it’s time to recognize there is as little worth on your side as there is on mine? Never said a word. Not one word.

And that’s how I know he can be beaten. Because he’s a fanatic. And the fanatic is always concealing a secret doubt.

The Le Carré book version has it a little differently, FWIW:

And if you want a sermon, Karla is not fireproof, because he’s a fanatic. And one day, if I have anything to do with it, that lack of moderation will be his downfall.

**

Bonus: Smiley on symmetry and asymmetry:

Smiley speaks to Karla<, wishing to turn him:

We are not so very different, you and I. We’ve both spent our lives looking for the weaknesses in one another’s systems. Don’t you think it’s time to recognize there is as little worth on your side as there is on mine? Never said a word. Not one word.

[ by Charles Cameron — my father was a gunnery officer & I’m a writer — sword > word > world? ]
.

The pen and sword issue is fundamentally that of word and deed, isn’t it? Only in this case, the “pen” is “pen and paint”.

**

How Dutch cartoonist @RLOppenheimer sees @Charlie_Hebdo_ terrorist attack #JesuisCharlie #IamCharlie pic.twitter.com/R19p0M7GfN

— Victor d'Allant (@dallant) January 7, 2015

Cartoonists stand in solidarity with #CharlieHebdo victims with these powerful images http://t.co/Tbg2WDiIHF pic.twitter.com/YxplDkNUy4

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) January 7, 2015

#CharlieHebdo in the eyes of #CharlieHebdo pic.twitter.com/v195erxsY2

— Zaid Benjamin (@zaidbenjamin) January 7, 2015

and then again:

Weapons of mass creation #JeSuisCharlie #freedomofexpression pic.twitter.com/OxObQH84U4

— Martina Leingruber (@leingruber) January 7, 2015

**

Will we ever get to the bottom of this complex of koans, in which our thoughts are part of the very reality they purport to represent?

You remember Goethe‘s Faust wanted to translate In the beginning was the Word as In the beginning was the deed?

In the beginning was the..

hush

thought

image

word

deed

fact

The relationship between thought and world — word and world, image and world — is of utmost importance and, I suspect, far from easily grasped by anything less than battering one’s head against reality.

[ by Charles Cameron — free speech, speech balloon style ]
.

This one’s background, so we understand the vibe of Charlie Hebdo:

Telling. @Independent illustrates #CharlieHebdo article with pics of magazine's satires on Michael Jackson & Pope. pic.twitter.com/LRtY42ORfZ

— Adam Levick (@adamlevick) January 7, 2015

**

Here’s Charlie Hebdo‘s last cartoon before the massacre — probably too recent to be the source of what looks to have been a carefully planned attack:

Meilleurs vœux, au fait. pic.twitter.com/a2JOhqJZJM

— Charlie Hebdo (@Charlie_Hebdo_) January 7, 2015

**

And a suggestion: the shortest distance between prediction and prophecy is via instinct:

"Still no attacks in France.We have until end of Jan to present wishes."Chilling prophecy by @Charlie_Hebdo_'s Charb: pic.twitter.com/JpGZ4y4xrk

— François Picard (@FrancoisF24) January 7, 2015

It’s the sense that a scenario is uncannily close to what actually happens later that gives us, in hindsight, the sense that it was prophetic rather than predictive: it’s the frisson, the shiver, that makes the cognitive difference.

[ by Charles Cameron — where I’m finding clarity in the fog, and grateful for it ]
.

From my point of view, the most calm-headed and significant tweet thus far today must be Will McCants‘ offering of scholarly context:

Insulting the prophet — a helpful scholarly review of the concept in Islam https://t.co/HMeEfqCItI

— Will McCants (@will_mccants) January 7, 2015

With any luck I’ll get back to this.

**

IMO, these tweets offer links to the two best resources thus far for thinking about the perpetrators:

Who attacked Charlie Hebdo in Paris? Assessing a Jihadi Attack in The West, ISIS vs al Qaeda | FPRI: http://t.co/UOwBopBpjk

— Clint Watts (@selectedwisdom) January 7, 2015

2 weeks ago I predicted more "mysterious" terrorism in Europe in 2015. It sucks to be there so soon. #CharlieHebdo http://t.co/UqySss6eLx

— John Schindler (@20committee) January 7, 2015

**

Back soon.