New Charlie Hebdo Cover Creates New Questions for U.S. News Media
|
Version 0 of 1. After the killings at the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo last week by Islamist extremists, other news media, including web-based outlets, chose to republish some of its cartoons that many Muslims found so offensive. Some American newspapers, including The New York Times, did not, calling the decision an editorial judgment. They drew criticism from some free-speech advocates who called the decision cowardly in the face of a terrorist attack. This week, American newspapers are confronting a variation of that choice: whether to republish the cover-page cartoon of the new Charlie Hebdo print edition, due out Wednesday. It shows a tearful caricature of the Prophet Muhammad holding the by-now iconic “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) placard with the words “Tout est pardonné” (“All is forgiven”) above him. Many viewed the cartoon image as a conciliatory message from the new editors of Charlie Hebdo after the carnage of the Paris attack. Others, however, said the new cover continues a Charlie Hebdo tradition of intentionally offending Muslims by depicting their prophet, an act that many Muslims consider blasphemous. The choice to republish the image (The Times, again, is not) goes to the heart of the debate about what constitutes free expression versus gratuitous images that at least some viewers find offensive, newspaper executives and other journalists said. They also said the choice touches on differences in American and French standards for offensiveness. It is further complicated by a legitimate news reason — Charlie Hebdo’s response to the deadly assault — that would seem to justify showing precisely what the newspaper did in its response. “Newspapers have to consider their audience, who reads their publication,” said Martha Steffens, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Journalism and an executive board member at the International Press Institute, an advocacy group. “Every news outlet is not going to make the same decision.” Professor Steffens, who was coincidentally visiting Paris last week with some students when the attacks took place, said that what might be different in the decision making this week was the newsworthiness of the Charlie Hebdo attack and its aftermath. “This is newsworthy because it’s the cover of a newspaper after a terrible tragedy,” she said. At The Times, which republished some Charlie Hebdo cartoons in its coverage of the attack, but not the ones that mocked Islam, an editorial decision was made in its online coverage to provide a link for viewers to click should they wish to see the new Muhammad cover. But the image will not be published in the print edition. “Actually we have republished some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons including a caricature of the head of ISIS as well as some political cartoons,” Dean Baquet, executive editor of The Times, said in a statement. “We do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. Many Muslims consider publishing images of their prophet innately offensive and we have refrained from doing so.” Other news outlets took a different approach. BuzzFeed, the online news site, ran previous Charlie Hebdo cartoons deemed offensive by Muslims and featured an image of the Wednesday cover in an article about how other publications were dealing with it. The BuzzFeed article portrayed those who chose not to republish as practicing self-censorship. The Washington Post, which published a single image of a previous Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Muhammad on its printed op-ed page last Thursday, republished the new cover on its website on Tuesday. Martin Baron, the newspaper’s executive editor, said the images did not violate its editorial standards. “It has to be deliberately, pointedly, needlessly offensive,” Mr. Baron said. In France, other newspapers have rallied to aid Charlie Hebdo. Its latest issue has been assembled in the offices of the left-wing newspaper Libération, some of whose staff members posted the image on Twitter earlier this week. In London, the newspaper The Guardian published the cartoon, but a web version of its article warns readers that it “contains the image of the magazine cover, which some may find offensive.” Adding to the debate over publishing the cartoon, some online commentators have also asserted that, if viewed upside down, the image could be seen as a depiction of the male anatomy. Many previous Charlie Hebdo images satirizing religious leaders have also included subtle or explicit pornographic references. Laurent Léger, an investigative journalist with Charlie Hebdo, shrugged off the idea, circulating on social media, that the new cartoon of Muhammad contained one or even two drawings of male genitals. “People can see what they want to see, but a cartoon is a cartoon. It is not a photograph. Who’s to say what Muhammad looks like. I haven’t seen him myself,” Mr. Leger said. Joel Simon, the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based advocacy group, said he was concerned that the debate over the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had conflated the issues of free-speech and editorial judgment. “Some people agree, some disagree. But I don’t think there’s evidence to suggest the decision was made because of threats of violence,” he said. “Here’s the thing that troubles me: This is a time when, regardless of your decision to publish or not, we need to stand together behind the principle of freedom of expression. I’d hate to see this become divisive.” |