Follow Us

FacebookTwitterRSSStumble UponDigg

Tags: , , , , ,

Publishing the Mohammed cartoons was bad journalism

There has to be a better reason than the fact that we can


September 21, 2012

CALGARY, AB, Sep 21, 2012/ Troy Media/ – What was the publisher thinking?

What audience was he attempting to serve?

What aspect of the lives of citizens of France was he defending or challenging?

The answer to all the above is that it doesn’t matter what he was thinking, who he thought he was serving, or what message he was trying to get across.

The act of publishing a series of editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic Prophet Mohammed was an ill-considered and unprofessional journalism decision, even for a magazine that labels itself satirical and thrives on being contrarian.

There is no question that the French publisher of Charlie Hebdo has the right to publish the cartoons. Choosing to do so, however, has angered legions of Muslims, and not just the more militant among them, who have also been violently responding in recent days to a You Tube posted piece of an anti-Islam video. Islam prohibits the physical depiction of Mohammed in any form, though unflattering or degrading images must worsen their impact.

The freedom to publish is supported either by convention or formally articulated in constitutional documents across the Western world. This right is an essential, foundational notion in the development and maintenance of democratic societies.

There are some restrictions of course. Defamation laws discourage reporting that spreads false information maliciously about someone, though you can’t defame a deceased person. Canada, among other western countries, has a law against inciting hatred of an identifiable group, though the act of publishing the cartoons would not be sufficient in itself for a newspaper publisher to face such charges.

The issue with the cartoons, then, is not an issue of being free to publish. There is no evidence to suggest that this inherent right is in any more jeopardy than normal in France or in other corners of the democratic world. But knowingly publishing material that will exacerbate a challenging social concern, and likely incite a violent response, violates another essential journalistic construct. The information produced by journalists is on some level a public service, and need be considerate of community standards and the context of a given issue or circumstance.

The c-word (context) is the missing link in much journalism, which can tend to focus on what happened and less on why it happened. Our societies are profoundly complex organisms that are constantly adjusting to new pressures and realities – economically, politically and socially. The movement of refugees and immigrants has always promoted tension in the host communities, which are effectively forced to admit new languages, foods, values, dress, religions and so on.

In no way am I suggesting that editors should permanently forfeit the option to publish images of Mohammed, but in choosing to do so they had better have a reason beyond the fact that they can. The argument that Christians see many unflattering images of Jesus in their lives and manage to get by is lame in the extreme, and acquiescing on some level to Muslims and their beliefs is not a sign of weakness.

Neither am I suggesting journalists should shy away from reporting difficult issues in general. To the contrary, with France facing significant social change and challenges as its already large Muslim population expands, the country’s institutions and its media must engage and even frame the discussion. But it has to be done responsibly. Raising tough questions with all concerned is key, while giving people a metaphoric slap in the face is a waste of a publishing pulpit.

The tensions aren’t the same yet in Canada; though we have newer immigrant communities from Asia, India, Pakistan, Africa that need to adjust to life in Canada, while traditional Canadians need to adjust as well to change they bring. It isn’t always a pretty picture, with fear, ignorance and racism often lying just below the surface of many interactions. We will most certainly face more and new challenges in Canada as we decide if and how public education and other social institutions need be changed to serve a country with an expanding population of new Canadians.

There is a lot of celebrity and bizarre-tale news out there that exists solely to attract large audiences and their money, but there is also a wealth of information that informs and helps citizens make sense of their communities and their world. Publishing the cartoons may fall into the first category, but they most certainly do not fall into the second, and it is the second category of news we need now more than ever.

Troy Media Columnist Terry Field is an associate professor and program chair of the journalism major in the Bachelor of Communication program at Mount Royal University, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Read more Terry Field

Receive Terry via RSS

This column is FREE to use on your websites or in your publications. However, Troy Media, with a link to its web site, MUST be credited.  

Editor's suggestions
Terry Field
Terry Field
Columnist Media Critic Troy Media Columnist Terry Field is an associate professor and program chair of the journalism major in the Bachelor of Communication program at Mount Royal University, in Calgary, Alberta. ...
READ MORE
Very little value for Canadians in big media deals
Very little value for Canadians in big media deals
August 21, 2012 CALGARY, AB, Aug 21, 2012/ Troy Media/ - The Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) - Canada's alleged broadcast and telecommunications regulator - recently approved the purchase of ...
READ MORE
Postmedia plan lacking bold vision
Postmedia plan lacking bold vision
June 4, 2012 CALGARY, AB, June 4, 2012/ Troy Media/ - Losing Sunday editions in three markets, cutting jobs, and centralizing additional production and editing functions, are expected to mitigate recent ...
READ MORE
Racial quotas for judges is a bad idea
Racial quotas for judges is a bad idea
May 23, 2012 BELLEVILLE, ON, May 23, 2012/ Troy Media/ - Does Canada need a quota system to ensure racial diversity among the judiciary? The Globe and Mail has published no ...
READ MORE
Terry Field
Very little value for Canadians in big media deals
Postmedia plan lacking bold vision
Racial quotas for judges is a bad idea

© Troy Media

ADVERTISEMENT
2 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
irrrena
irrrena

Although maybe hurtful to some, the cartoon was drawn to perhaps enlighten an already intense situation.  I am of course talking about the highly controversial film "Innocence of Muslims" which has caused an uproar in countries all over the world. 

("It happens that the news this week is Mohammed and this lousy film, so we are drawing cartoons about this subject," Charbonnier told CNN affiliate BFM-TV on Wednesday. )

"In France, we always have the right to write and draw. And if some people are not happy with this, they can sue us and we can defend ourselves. That's democracy. You don't throw bombs; you discuss, you debate. But you don't act violently. We have to stand and resist pressure from extremism." (CNN)

I agree with the author in the sense that it is a matter of freedom of expression.  One should not have that taken away simply because they are afraid of the consequences.  The cartoon which was published did not bring any physical harm to anyone.  Instead of punishing the publisher who has stayed within the “canons of journalism”; I believe those that react in any irrational manner which is harmful to the wellbeing of others should be punished instead. 

This is not the first time something like this has been published or presented in the media.  There have been several cartoons, reports and television shows depicting Christianity in all sorts of manners, both positive and negative.  This may be one very significant downfall with the ever increasing information technology and output media.  Once something is published there really is no way of telling how the public will react.  There will always be something which one person or another is not fond of when it comes to things we see in the media.  It is the way we choose to react to all of it which will ultimately shape who we are and what we stand for. 

The cartoon was meant to be nothing more but a joke and sadly some people are just looking way too far into it. 

This is the CNN article I got the quotes from.  It’s a good read!

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/19/world/europe/france-mohammed-cartoon/index.html

 

advocate75
advocate75 like.author.displayName 1 Like

The answer to violent challenges of free speech - religious or otherwise - is more free speech, not less. By self-censoring, the media just emboldens the bully on the block, which in this case is radical Islam.

The cartoons in question are not universally insulting. They are silly cartoons and nothing more. Moderate muslims might see them as slightly offensive or worse, but it is only the most violent and reactionary amongst their ranks that are now causing the West to question its own most cherished values on free speech.

In my view, the magazine editors are performing a very valuable and very necessary public service: they are defending the right to express ideas and opinions, that although offensive to some, are nonetheless protected by law. If journalists are unwilling to provide this service, who will? This problem is not going away, and the suggestion to simply wait until the pot has simmered down is exactly the wrong approach. The ability to speak in the West was once controlled by religious authority, namely the Catholic Church. Ideas or opinions that contradicted interpreted scriptures were banned. Books where burned, and so were people. Religion has been a source of censorship for hundreds - indeed thousands - of years. The only way to break down the walls of religious intolerance is to stand by, defend and promote values that have been hard fought for. Backing down from a few militant muslims will only result in more censorship.

 How can we freely express ourselves when we run the risk of violent retaliation? Can we really claim to have free speech if some of what we say will put us at risk of bodily harm or even death? No. I agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she says that radical Islam can single out and retaliate against these images for the precise reason that they are only published by a brave few. What if these images were a common occurrence? What if every publication chose to republish them? Wouldn't that make it difficult for radical and violent extremists to single people out for execution?You say that the argument that Christians would not react this way is "lame in the extreme"; however, the fact remains: it is a group of extremist Muslims who are killing people, calling for jihad and murdering writers and government officials. Certainly, every religion has its extremists, but that is nothing but a deflection. It's much like saying, "I realize that so-and-so is bad, but hey, look at that other guy! He's bad too!" Big deal. That's no excuse.

 The Arab nations are going through an exciting evolution, a so-called Arab Spring. At this time of great conflict and opportunity, we need more moral courage than ever, not more censorship, self-imposed or otherwise.