Discussion for article #231794
Bravo! All this big media ‘wrestling’, as the Washington Post headlines the alleged professional angst is embarrassing and a stark portrait of American journalism today to say nothing of the lack of confidence and the disrespect this attitude displays toward the men and women currently engaged in protecting America. Along with the New York Times, the AP’s desire not to publish anything intending to “provoke or intimidate” stands in sharp contrast to their own relatively bland modern self description as that of a “newsgatherer” and explains a great deal about the Bush years.
So, as I count it…terror cartoons join marches for racial justice, labor protests and anti-war protests on big media’s Too Icky List.
Big Media, Je suis Sony…
Even offensive speech has to be protected, that’s why the ACLU defends the Klan. Je suis Westboro Baptist Church.
2 Likes
This is misdirected whining in an attempt to be clever. Putting the images out there gets the cartoonists and their message much-need, valuable visibility and flies in the face of the perverted Islamo fascists who terrorize and murder in response to mere pictures.
1 Like
One of the most exciting things I’ve seen come out recently is Patreon, which I think is a great way to manage the relationship between cartoonists and consumers. I wish more of my favorite web cartoonists were on it, so that I could support them directly as well.
1 Like
I, for one, am not Charlie.
I don’t profit from exploiting people’s fears and hatreds in crude, unfunny cartoons.
1 Like
I read years ago that the reasons Berkeley Breathed (Bloom County, Opus) and Bill Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes) ended their cartooning for newspapers was the continual shrinking of their panel allotment. That and the political environment in the USA was becoming openly hostile to cartooning.
all becuz Benghaaaaaazzziiiii and …
2 Likes
Not at all. I think the author was making a valid point that not many news outlets employ cartoonists. I don’t see how it was misdirected, whiny or particularly clever.
2 Likes
First, I have to say, the article referenced in this piece is in no way a “comprehensive overview of Charlie Hebdo’s track record.” It’s an opinion piece featuring only a few examples to illustrate the writer’s point.
I think back on the material that got Larry Flynt and HUSTLER in trouble. It was VILE. It was unbelievably vile. It attacked not only groups of people, but often individuals. Yet we decided, rightly, that Flynt had a right to publish it.
For me, there’s no parsing the data. Charlie Hebdo’s editorial policies are irrelevant here. What matters is, people were murdered for expressing their opinions.
2 Likes
I wonder if Charlie Hebdo had been viley mocking Jesus or the Jewish God (not just a rabbi), if these folks would be talking about a “free press.” And, of course, let it be a matter of U.S. foreign policy or war, and we see how free the capitalist press is, including its comics (yeah, let’s see a mainstream press comic start mocking religious figures and see how far that gets). In fact, the FBI, Army, NSA and police regularly eavesdrop on, harass, threaten and impersonate the press (and others), but it takes a Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden or that army guy going on the lamb to get it reported, while the mainstream press ignores it or backs down when threatened by the government.
You mean like this? The National Front party (and many others on the French right) have long hated Charlie Hebdo for their attacks on Catholicism and Christianity (not to mention the FN themselves, of course).
Oh, and to reinforce it, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League (who can always be counted on for a horrible statement) was in full fatwa envy mode over this, saying that while of course a Catholic would never do such a thing, these guys really got what they deserved.
Homophobic? Where in the hell did anyone get that from? Did you even bother to read and figure out the context of any of the cartoons you condemn before leaping to that conclusion? (And yes I’m gay so spare me the sanctimony.) What I see in Charlie Hebdo is a gleefully irreverent celebration of queerness. This is what the left used to be before it got as uptight and sensitive as the religious right.
Really this is anti-intellectual and ill informed. If you want to make an argument actually do the work and make it thoroughly. Know what you are talking about. Maybe there is a case but you didn’t make it and your source didn’t either. Instead you both relied on and doctrinaire rules and assumptions.
This is very disappointing and shoddy work from TPM. I’m disgusted.
1 Like