Jump to content

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


msj

Recommended Posts

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.

Yeah but their goal to "terror"ize seems to have failed. And in the same stroke they've made the world appreciate, what objectively can be defined as, a racist publication.

IMHO it was an extraordinary failure to achieve the goals.

Who's going to kill people who offend the prophet next? They become bigger martyr's than the terrorists themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wonder what the Canadian public reaction would be to a cartoon or caricature of a drunken aboriginal or a French speaking frog?

This is a poor argument. In what context is this drunken aboriginal or french speaking frog taking place? Regardless, how is a cartoon showing Muhammed holding a sign tantamount to your previous examples? The issue is, simply depiciting Muhammed, in any way, is the problem with radical Islamists. Because to do so is to "dishonor" him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know what's really ironic?

The reason Prophet Mohammed did not want muslims to have pictures of him and depict him is because he was concerned that people would take his image and idolatize him much like people did with Jesus. He didn't want people to equate him or any other human with Allah/God because that was supposedly an insult to Allah/God and according to Mohammed, people should worship Allah, not humans.

But the restriction does not apply to non-muslims because non-muslims do not agree that Mohammed is that last and final messenger of Allah and many do not even believe in Allah/God so there is ZERO risk of them committing idolatry by depicting Prophet Mohammed. So non-muslims depicting Prophet Mohammed or criticizing him is not banned in Islam.

If anything, all these hundreds of millions of conservative muslims that think that Mohammed should be elevated to such a point that he is above criticism and depiction by non-muslims are committing idolatry and therefore are committing one of the greatest sins in Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course news outlets have the right to not publish.

They have a right to be cowards.

This whole meme is just pure silliness. Just because a media outlet does not go out of their way to insult various religions does not mean they are cowards. The reality is theres very little if any journalistic value in posting these silly cartoons. No serious news outlet is every going to bother.

These businesses purport to make money from providing their viewers/readers with INFORMATION and educating their viewers/readers about the NEWS. What exactly are viewers going to learn from them publishing stupid cartoons meant to insult muslims? Nothing.

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These businesses purport to make money from providing their viewers/readers with INFORMATION and educating their viewers/readers about the NEWS. What exactly are viewers going to learn from them publishing stupid cartoons meant to insult muslims? Nothing.

Maybe people could see the cartoons and make up their own minds about whether they classify as offensive or not, rather than have the progressive media tell them what to think? And mainstream media is hardly about informing people anymore. It's all about trying to subtly make people have the 'correct' beliefs by skewing information and only providing information that supports their confirmation bias.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing we also have to recognize is that media outlets care about their bottom-line, they have to appeal to their consumers, and often their advertisers too. By printing the cartoons, it could mean loss of readership from Muslim readers and their sympathizers, which they don't want. Now, if not printing the cartoons means a loss of readership that an outlet feels would outweigh the loss if they published the cartoons, then I would bet the CBC and Globe etc. would publish them.

It's hard to blame outlets for not wanting to incite crazy violent people. It's a big choice to put your staff's lives at risk for a principle. What would we all do if we were editor-in-chief of a newspaper in this situation?

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Any media that does not reprint images of Mohammed is not displaying cowardice. Isn't this about 'freedom of speech'. Whether their decision is based on the bottom line or personal beliefs, it is still all about 'freedom of speech and choice'.

Many comedians choose to not go after religion based on their own personal values and morals. Should we accuse comedians of being cowards because they do not attack Mohammed? And yet, many comedians are being targeted for being cowards for not tackling this subject.

Edited by WestCoastRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any media that does not reprint images of Mohammed is not displaying cowardice. Isn't this about 'freedom of speech'. Whether their decision is based on the bottom line or personal beliefs, it is still all about 'freedom of speech and choice'.

Many comedians choose to not go after religion based on their own personal values and morals. Should we accuse comedians of being cowards because they do not attack Mohammed? And yet, many comedians are being targeted for being cowards for not tackling this subject.

I think the two are not mutually exclusive. One can exercise freedom of speech for any reason, including cowardice. I read somewhere that the CBC had no problem with displaying the image of the Piss Christ art exhibit, so not giving offense to religion does not seem to be one of their considerations. I don't necessarily think that this implies cowardice was their reason, but I do believe it gives the lie to their stated reason.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

To add to my assertion about the cowardly/sensitive/absurdly policy,we now have Oxford Press telling writers to not mention pigs or sausages in books as to avoid offending the sensibilities of Muslims and/or Jews.

Yep, it's even "insulting" to talk about pigs in this brave new world.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/01/14/oxford-university-press-tells-authors-not-to-mention-pigs-or-sausage-in-books-to-avoid-offending-muslims-and-jews/

I better buy "Pork: More than 50 Heavenly Meals that Celebrate the Glory of Pig, Delicious Pig" before it too is deemed "offensive" and "insulting."

Edited by msj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any media that does not reprint images of Mohammed is not displaying cowardice. Isn't this about 'freedom of speech'. Whether their decision is based on the bottom line or personal beliefs, it is still all about 'freedom of speech and choice'.

Many comedians choose to not go after religion based on their own personal values and morals. Should we accuse comedians of being cowards because they do not attack Mohammed? And yet, many comedians are being targeted for being cowards for not tackling this subject.

Yes, it's cowardice, how can the CBC that has gone to court on many occasions to ensure its freedom of the press choose to ignore freedom of expression? A freedom obviously under attack. Btw, Mohammed doesn't exist, he may have, it would be wrong for me to say either way, but you can't attack him now. You can mock a religion, you can mock him as part of mocking that religion, but no one is actually harmed in that mocking. We however are harmed when we allow our freedom to mock that religion, or any other, to be taken away by murderers. The issue of who chooses to, or not to mock a religion couldn't possibly be any more irrelevant, the point is having the unfettered freedom to do so, the CBC being our national broadcaster has a duty to represent the values for which we are supposed to stand, not to protect the unwarranted sensibilities of any particular group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe people could see the cartoons and make up their own minds about whether they classify as offensive or not, rather than have the progressive media tell them what to think? And mainstream media is hardly about informing people anymore. It's all about trying to subtly make people have the 'correct' beliefs by skewing information and only providing information that supports their confirmation bias.

Maybe people could not-see the cartoons and still make up thier own minds about wether they classify as offensive or not?

I'm not quite sure what the point of determining wether the cartoons are offensive or not is supposed to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hebdo is a magazine that depicts cartoons that are offensive. They take pride in that. They cover a lot of different areas and only a few people find their publication amusing. Most find it offensive. That is why they publish only weekly and only about 60,000 magazines. They cater to a niche public.

The Star and other publications cater to a much larger crowd. People who buy the Star do not feel like being offended. The Toronto Star is read by about 1 million people daily.

Why would the Toronto Star publish a cartoon which it knows would be offensive to a large numbers of its readership?

If people want to take the chance to be offended then they can go out and by a Charlie Hebdo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hebdo is a magazine that depicts cartoons that are offensive. They take pride in that. They cover a lot of different areas and only a few people find their publication amusing. Most find it offensive. That is why they publish only weekly and only about 60,000 magazines. They cater to a niche public.

The Star and other publications cater to a much larger crowd. People who buy the Star do not feel like being offended. The Toronto Star is read by about 1 million people daily.

Why would the Toronto Star publish a cartoon which it knows would be offensive to a large numbers of its readership?

If people want to take the chance to be offended then they can go out and by a Charlie Hebdo.

How do you know what the Star's readership reaction will be like?

Are all 1 million readers Muslim?

Even if they are, do they follow The Koran literally and are offended even at the mere scribble of the Prophet?

How would they know to be offended if they don't see the entire context of what is being reported?

For non-Muslims, why would they be offended by an image of someone allegedly important because a bunch of people say he is important?

Am I supposed to feel offended because a bunch of other people say they feel offended?

Why must Charlie Hebdo restrain themselves from drawing such cartoons?

Why is it not more reasonable for Muslim extremists to restrain themselves from killing cartoonists?

Afterall, Charlie Hebdo is only catering to "a niche public."

Oh, excuse me, that should be "was." :D

Edited by msj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Charlie will soon disappear back into oblivion where it had started. I enjoy editorial cartoons. I have seen many of the cartoons in Charlie Hebdo as posted on the Internet to see for myself what the conversation was all about and find them not only not funny but offensive. That is why I would never purchase a copy and why its readership is only 60,000 and weekly.

I do not need a graphic picture of a decapitation to get information on a murder.

Charlie Hebdo has enough of a niche public to survive financially. Good for them and let them continue what it is they do.

Other publications and media have their own "tone" and kind of public following which sets the size of their readership. The editors make decisions on how to best communicate the news to their particular kind of readership. I do know that many of the 10% of the population of Toronto who are Muslims find any depiction of Mohamed to be offensive just as I am sure that in the 12% of people with Chinese origin would find a cartoon of a buck toothed, slanted eyed oriental with wire glasses to be offensive. Why do something to offend people?

Personally, I do not need pictures of dead soldiers, naked men or women, bleeding children or questionable cartoons as a means to gather news. But that is just my personal sensibilities.

I do not know who msj is but I assume he/she finds certain things offensive as is his/her right.

Killing someone because of a cartoon is as outrageous as killing somebody because they insulted you - but it happens all the time in face to face confrontations.

No one could or would condone the murders that these fanatics committed but I see no reason why any media outlet who chose to not offend some of their readership by publishing that cartoon would be considered cowardly. All publications chose to not show pictures of the butchered cartoonists lying in their own blood and I am glad for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have tried to find out just where Charlie stands in relation to other magazines in France and the world. It certainly does not appear in the top 50 in France and I suspect it is not even in the top 100 with a distribution of 60,000. I consider that to be oblivion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magazines_by_circulation

As to the topic of this thread, the editor of the Star has explained why the Star chose not to reproduce these cartoons.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/01/16/why-the-star-wont-run-the-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-cruickshank.html

The explanation makes a lot of sense to me and I congratulate Cruickshank for his decision.

As to reproducing graphics and pictures fro magazines by mass media, I do not think pictures from Playboy would be appropriate in mass media publications.

Edited by Big Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have tried to find out just where Charlie stands in relation to other magazines in France and the world. It certainly does not appear in the top 50 in France and I suspect it is not even in the top 100 with a distribution of 60,000. I consider that to be oblivion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magazines_by_circulation

As to the topic of this thread, the editor of the Star has explained why the Star chose not to reproduce these cartoons.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/01/16/why-the-star-wont-run-the-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-cruickshank.html

The explanation makes a lot of sense to me and I congratulate Cruickshank for his decision.

As to the size of Charlie Hebdo: why does it matter? If it reached 1 million people on a weekly basis then does that justify the murders in your mind?

No, really, I don't see why it matters.

As to the Star's reasoning: wow, what horrible reasoning!

Basically, the Star disagrees with Charlie Hebdo's politics so they will not show a cover which can only be considered "offensive" if one takes seriously the idea that an image of Mohammed in itself is offensive.

Oh, and even though showing the cartoon is directly related to the reporting.

I bet this same paper will post a picture of an iPhone when it talks about iPhones, and a picture of Harper when it has a story about Harper, but heaven forbid it put up the recent cover of Charlie Hebdo when in a story about the cover of Charlie Hebdo.

I wish they would explain why they think an image of Mohammed is morally wrong.

Why? Because it says so in some ancient book?

No logic whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish they would explain why they think an image of Mohammed is morally wrong.

Why? Because it says so in some ancient book?

No logic whatsoever.

You know why. They'll be labelled racist. And not by moderate Muslims necessarily but White Guilt Liberals who don't want to offend any minority group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point on the readership is the credibility and popularity of the magazine. Obviously, what it contains is not popular so why should other publications that are far more popular because of their content begin to reproduce the content of an unpopular marginal magazine?

No murders are ever justified but the OP of this thread is about the other publications not reproducing something that is in the news.

So msj what do you think that the Star and other national and international publications should have published? Why? and what do you think the result of the publication would be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Big Guy, let me be a "Big Guy" and answer your questions. I am sure you will try to answer mine soon....

The least that could be published is as shown in the first link in the original post.

Other than that, see post #36 where I link to someone who is attempting to explain some of the cartoons (though not many there are of the prophet).

Context is important when it comes to satire and throw in the language difference and it's easy for people to claim to be offended by images when they have no comprehension of the words being used (or importance of font style for that matter).

One would think that some in the media would think understanding the context of some of the images would be important/interesting since those images are so "controversial" and "offensive" as to lead to murder.

But no, instead, it's the same bland media stories: freedom of speech is good, images are bad, but not so bad as to warrant murder but we aren't going to show them to you just in case they come gunning for us....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your civil response. I am quite prepared to truthfully and civilly answer any question you have of me.

BTW. To-day the Pope stated:" One cannot react violently, but if {someone} says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It's to be expected. There are a lot of people who speak badly about other religions. They make fun of them. What happens is what happens with my friend {who insults my mother}. There is a limit."

I agree with the Pope on this one. If I am out on some social occasion and someone continues to insult my wife or children then I will probably bop them in the nose - and feel good about it. I would not kill them unless the confrontation continued to where I felt my or my family's lives were in danger. I would never condone killing. Why would main stream publications go out of their way to insult anybody?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...