By Brian Lee
If one can take a positive from the attack on the French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, it was the media debate that erupted after about whether or not to republish the offending cartoons. It gave us a prolonged glimpse into the often misunderstood and maligned mechanism of news reporting. Read the comments below any online news story to see how folks consider themselves expert at second-guessing editorial decisions.
The Charlie Hebdo cartoon episode highlighted the dilemma editors face when publishing stuff that may be considered sensational or offensive. But what made it even more compelling was how divided our brightest media minds were. As one New York Times columnist wrote, it provided a "teachable moment."
Major North American news outlets like the New York Times, CNN, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post all decided against including Charlie Hebdo’s Muhammad caricatures with stories about the attack. Theirs was a sound argument and a good reminder for any conflicted journalist grappling with an issue:
Does it add to the story and does its news value outweigh the risk of offending the innocent?
David Walmsley, the Globe and Mail’s editor-in-chief, explained his decision not to include the cartoons:
"We hadn’t published the cartoons before the slaughter and our editorial position remains the same today."
On the other side was the National Post, Montreal Gazette and many non-print media sources like the Huffington Post or Buzzfeed. In Canada the split was further pronounced with CBC’s English language service opting not to publish the cartoons while their French counterparts did.
My first reaction was to expect — and hope for — a movement in which news media around the globe would publish a symbolic caricature of Muhammad. Not only would it show solidarity with Charlie Hebdo but it might also dilute the focus of attacks and render the cartooning taboo impotent. Instead, "Je Suis Charlie" emerged as the hashtag anthem.
Yes, it affirmed our commitment to freedom of speech but did nothing to attack the core of what mobilized this atrocity in the first place. A portrayal of the Prophet might be offensive to fundamentalist Muslims but one could argue not "needlessly offensive," as David Studer, CBC’s director of journalistic standards and practices, claimed was behind his decision to abstain. The lively debate around the Hebdo attack shows it’s a special case in which something bigger is at stake.
At least NY Times public editor Margaret Sullivan acknowledged her paper could be wrong:
"... given these events — and an overarching story that is far from over — a review and reconsideration of those standards may be in order in the days ahead."
I’m not the only one to agree that their principles of sensitivity gave some major news outlets an easy out. For what it’s worth, the Harbour Spiel teetered back and forth on the issue as well. But rather than flipping a coin, I bet that it is better for a newspaper to be politically incorrect than afraid.
(Turn to page 4 for blasphemy.)
Comments