Which media outlets are and are not showing the Prophet Mohammed?

[msj]

Just wondering if anyone is compiling a list of media outlets with respect to reprinting images of Mohammed?

Seems like the NY Times and Globe and Mail have chickened out so far.

My subscription to the G&M lapses at the end of the month ( their cowardice over Charlie Hebdo was the final straw and I cancelled ) but no sign of even the latest cover which is not even remotely offensive unless one thinks drawing images of a long dead warrior dude is offensive because Allah....

Anyway, here is one link to a story and the image and I would appreciate to see others too: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/01/13/a-feckless-new-york-times-along-with-many-other-media-chickens-out-of-publishing-the-new-charlie-hebdo-cover/

And here CBC explains their cowardice: http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/community/editorsblog/2015/01/to-publish-or-not-to-publish.html

G&M explain their cowardice: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/we-honour-charlie-hebdo-but-we-dont-want-to-be-it/article22388259/

All I can do is post Charlie Hebdo cartoons in my non-anonymous Twitter feed and Facebook statuses but even that is better than our media above.

At least I can boycott the G&M.

The CBC still gets my tax dollars....

Edited January 14, 2015 by msj

[Boges]

Not that I oppose the freedom of a news outlet to publish any material they want. BUT!

Why get so upset with any publication that doesn't want to publish material that, from what I hear, is rather racist?

Edited January 14, 2015 by Boges

[msj]

Of course news outlets have the right to not publish.

They have a right to be cowards.

And I have the right to boycott. That's my expression of freedom.

CBC, however, still gets my tax dollars.

If I was on the other side of this issue; that is, if I truly believed it was wrong to show an image of "The Prophet," and CBC did show it then I too would be upset that CBC is getting my tax dollars.

Given this, and other matters such as Jian and now Amanda Lang, I think it's time to wind down the CBC but that is for another topic.

[Boges]

Given this, and other matters such as Jian and now Amanda Lang, I think it's time to wind down the CBC but that is for another topic.

Of all the troublesome things about the CBC, two rogue staffers and not publishing Charlie Hebdo pics are low on that list.

Now that Hockey revues have been all but removed from the CBC, they're influence in Canadian culture will be winding down. Rogers completely de-panted them on their biggest money maker.

It would be interesting if Justin Trudeau would agree to pledge to increase funding to the CBC, it has been stagnant, if not lowered, under the CPC.

There's a thread about it in another part of the forum.

[msj]

CBC funding has been stagnant under many Prime Ministers.

Thanks to the loss of hockey maybe Canadians can finally be free of this albatross once and for all.

Nevertheless, the allegations against Jian and Amanda Lang demonstrate some kind of change as Canadaland rises and the old media continues to stagnate, at best.....

[Big Guy]

I believe that every media outlet is caught between the rock and the hard place. There are a few "untouchables" in Western media - the Holocaust and the "N" word for example. They are careful to stick handle around these "untouchables" because they offend a number of people in Western countries.

Why would one accept that the "n" word (notice I do not use that word since this post may be censored) and any question of the Holocaust should be prevented but a picture of Mohammed, usually in comical caricature, be acceptable.

With the onset of ease of world communications, the media have to decide what is "offensive" to what block of their readers. They survive on who is interested in what they communicate.

A interesting example is Al Jazeera English. This Arab financed publication has been trying to break into the American market by straddling the line by presenting news without a regional spin. This latest incident in Paris has created internal problems because most of Al Jazeera readership is in Europe and the Middle East. It will be interesting to see how (if) it is able to work out a compromise.

As to the CBC, there are fewer blacks and half the Jews than are Muslims in Canada. If the "n" word and the Holocaust are untouchable then why should any cartoon picture of Mohammed not be included in that group?

[-1=e^ipi]

CBC refuses to publish the cartoons, but Radio Canada is completely fine doing it.

The decision was made by David Studer who appears to be some Canadian version of Michael Moore. You can watch the interview if you want.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charlie-hebdo-attacks-why-hasn-t-cbc-shown-prophet-muhammad-caricatures-1.2894322

It's pretty clear that David Studer and others making these 'decisions' want to ensure that they filter the 'correct' information to Canadians to ensure that they don't form 'incorrect' opinions. In my opinion, they want to use their positions to impose their 'progressive' ideology on everyone else rather than try to inform the public as much as possible. This is the result of the infiltration of 'Social Justice Warriors' in all our media and was very much what #gamergate was about (despite the lying media insisting that it was just misogynists 'attacking' women). It doesn't surprise me that the anti-islamist protests in Dresden call the media the 'lying media' because that is what they are.

[Boges]

As to the CBC, there are fewer blacks and half the Jews than are Muslims in Canada. If the "n" word and the Holocaust are untouchable then why should any cartoon picture of Mohammed not be included in that group?

Well for one, a religion isn't an identifiable ethnic group.

[Argus]

Generally the French media are having little problem publishing such material. Their communities, on the whole, are fine with offending Muslims. The English media, on the other hand, is aghast at the very thought. I think the Sun chain and the National Post have, but I'm not sure if any other major outlets did.

[Michael Hardner]

They have a right to be cowards.

And I have the right to boycott. That's my expression of freedom.

It's a tough thing to say that somebody should put themselves at risk for a principle, ie. somebody else, ie. not you.

Maybe it's something that journalists are expected to endure, just as any uniformed police or security official could be targeted at any time. I'm not sure.

It's hard to resolve the sad fate of journalists these days - unpaid interns... layoffs, etc. - with what is expected of them here.

[bush_cheney2004]

Offending <insert group here> is the price of admission....it is a test for any liberal democracy that espouses "freedom of expression" rights.

If the offended group can't handle it....they ain't ready for "freedom".

[Big Guy]

I wonder what the Canadian public reaction would be to a cartoon or caricature of a drunken aboriginal or a French speaking frog? My point is that certain things are offensive to certain groups. I suggest that the media has to decide how important the offending caricature is to the story or news being presented.

I remember where local coverage of a Legion contest included a photo of a Legion member in black face during a skit. The picture went viral and the Legion Brach was pilloried by the media and readers.

If we really believe in the freedom of speech then why do we not use the "N" word to describe blacks?

[Michael Hardner]

If we really believe in the freedom of speech then why do we not use the "N" word to describe blacks?

You're missing the point. We can use the 'N' word, subject to limits. The line is about violence, death threats vs. words. Words should be protected even when offensive.

[Boges]

You're missing the point. We can use the 'N' word, subject to limits. The line is about violence, death threats vs. words. Words should be protected even when offensive.

Yeah, if one was too be subject to death for saying the N-word or denying the Holocaust then we'd have an Apples to Apples comparison.

[Boges]

The Irony is that if a publication like Charlie Hebdo existing here in the West they'd be subject to massive calls for boycotts.

But now the post massacre issue is selling on kijiji.

http://www.kijiji.ca/v-oeuvre-d-art/ville-de-quebec/charlie-hebdo-derniere-exemplaire/1045001221

They probably couldn't have imagined such popularity.

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah, if one was too be subject to death for saying the N-word or denying the Holocaust then we'd have an Apples to Apples comparison.

I'm not comparing anything... I'm answering BG's question which effectively asked:

"If we have free speech then why don't we use it ?"

Of course we do, and we can.

[Michael Hardner]

The Irony is that if a publication like Charlie Hebdo existing here in the West they'd be subject to massive calls for boycotts.

I don't see any irony in that. You can object to offensive material and still defend the right to publish it, it's not that hard to keep straight in your mind.

[Boges]

I don't see any irony in that. You can object to offensive material and still defend the right to publish it, it's not that hard to keep straight in your mind.

You didn't quote the entire post. The irony is the newest issue of Charlie Hedbo is flying off the shelf. Now most of that has to do with collectibility. But still, they must be raking in the cash.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

The irony is the newest issue of Charlie Hedbo is flying off the shel.

So what is the irony ?

[Big Guy]

To Boges - If you question the Holocaust in the black Ghetto in New York or any other black ghetto in any large urban center then you may get a question or two. You use the "N" word in the same areas and you will find your life in danger.

It seems the latest issue of Hedbo has sold 3 million and another 10 million are being printed. What a surprising windfall for that publication.

Or was it a surprise?

[Boges]

So what is the irony ?

Just that, in the West, the way we seem to deal with offensive material would be to call for a boycott so that the offending party would feel it in the pocketbook.

This tactic by Islamists has turned into a financial boon for Charlie Hebdo.

[msj]

It's a tough thing to say that somebody should put themselves at risk for a principle, ie. somebody else, ie. not you.

I agree it is hard.

The only risk I can take is by putting pictures of "The Prophet" in my non-anonymous Twitter and Facebook feeds which is exactly what I am doing.

Who knows, maybe I will get a knock on my door one day...

My concern, however, is with the position they are taking.

Basically, if they do up a story about, say, a Ford truck then they will have a picture of the truck. The context of the story justifies such an image.

Now, when they do a story, even just a regular news story, that involves a picture of "The Prophet" they will not put up a picture even though, presumably, they are not Muslim so they have no personal religious reason to not put up a picture to give the story proper context.

Even though there is nothing offensive about a picture of "The Prophet" other than "Islam" being the reason for not showing an image.

In other words, this is not merely being sensitive and/or cowardly: it is an absurd policy, period.

Why any media would allow themselves to be manipulated to this extent is an indictment on their policy.

So, sure, don't put up images that your editorial team do think are offensive in your opinion. No problem there - we can agree to disagree.

But if you're not going to be putting any up, especially when the image is relevant to provide context to the news story and the image is as inoffensive as wallpaper - well, that is pretty damning of the editorial decision making process, imo.

Edited January 14, 2015 by msj

[msj]

BTW, Alanis Morissette called and she would like her use of the word "irony" back....

[Boges]

BTW, Alanis Morissette called and she would like her use of the word "irony" back....

[Michael Hardner]

This tactic by Islamists has turned into a financial boon for Charlie Hebdo.

Not really ironic, more of a response by supporters of the magazine but ok.

I don't think it would bother the terrorists that the response was as it was. They killed their targets, and there was a huge response which is what they wanted.