Discussion for article #231755
There are always gong to be more homicidal religious nut jobs. It seems they are the one thing religion produces faithfully.
4 Likes
I hope Europe doesn’t overreact to this the way Americans reacted after 9-11
1 Like
Sounds like a variation on the “lone wolf” scenario, very much like the two brothers responsible for the bombing at the Boston Marathon in 2013. And they are the hardest ones to try to prevent.
1 Like
Probably not. Remember the Brits after the subway bombing? They kept calm and carried on. We could learn a thing or two from the Europeans. You know what they’re doing at some of the vigils? They’re holding up pens and pencils. Moving.
Excuse me now, got to get chopping my dinner arugula.
2 Likes
According to witnesses, the shooters yelled “Allahu Akbar” and “We’ve taken revenge against the prophet” during the attack.
That doesn’t sound right. Other reports I have heard say they shouted about “avenging” the Prophet, which would make more sense.
France might, if past behavior and attitudes about Muslims is any indication.
OTOH, Boston managed to stay fairly sane.
Not fair to target the innocent. We’ll see, I guess.
Be careful. It’s tender.
I know this probably hits very close to home for journalists and all, but I’m just personally finding it a bit hard to get all hyped up over…in part because, well, every day and every story is already nothing but hype. But, as I understand it, France has a severe and pervasive problem with anti-muslim bigotry that makes the ridiculous Islamaphobia in this country look like schoolyard name-calling, even with the success people have had institutionalizing it here, and we never heard or hear anything about it. Now all we’re hearing about is Muslims shot some popular cartoonist and editor because of a Mohammed cartoon. Clearly, no support or justification or excuse for what has happened can exist (nor does it from my quarter), but it all just makes me wonder where the balance is or should lie, particularly in the reporting. Can there be such a thing as antagonistic journalism or is that just a “by definition” non-existent thing? Conversely, I’m sure we can find those who would argue that it sure can exist and is the only “good” journalism or “journalism’s job”. Should there be a concept such as journalism at your own risk? When journalism becomes antagonistic (if that concept is allowed) and is recognized as brave for standing up in the face of the risks it engenders, can we also admit that it may also have contributed to things like widespread anti-muslim bigotry despite its good (or otherwise) intentions? I have no answers, just questions. We spend a lot of time criticizing Faux News, but how many of us would feel some luscious schadenfreude hearing that Sean Hannity received a left-shoe beatdown from a Muslim at a bar who recognized him as that “muslim hating bigot from Faux News?” I know I probably would. Can the media and “journalism” industry completely sanitize anything and everything it does through the lens of free speech and open discourse and claiming, essentially, that “everything is fair game”, etc.? It will try, but should it be allowed to? Should we condemn anything and everything even remotely appearing to be self-censorship? Where do the lines belong and why does everyone pretend to know where they should lie, such that the question is scoffed at as if you just tried to join the conversation at the adult’s table while still wearing your bib? I suppose what I might be getting at is the idea that perhaps there’s an opportunity for the "journalism’ industry to engage in some introspection in this ugly turn of events and the issues surrounding it, but that I expect there to be none whatsoever…after all, journalism doesn’t need introspection and such questioning is just bending the knee to those who seek to silence, right? So, no introspection…just like we never heard or will hear about widespread anti-muslim bigotry in France that may or may not have been inadvertently fed by deliberately evocative or antagonistic cartoons and reports, which were of course always discussed and defended in the vacuum of not reporting on that bigotry problem. You can almost smell the circular logic. Is there or can there even be such a thing as ethical journalism or journalistic integrity if the rule is simply that nothing is off limits, ever, no matter what?
Sure, I’m playing a little devil’s advocate here, and sure, my timing’s typically poor and going to be attacked, but if not now then when?
The middle east just isn’t ready to come into the 21st century.
Since the (alleged) terrorists are French, I guess an “America after 9-11” response would consist of invading Germany?
I’ve been thinking about this all day, and I don’t disagree with you.
We criticize Fox News for its specific brand of not-journalism. It’s certainly incendiary, but almost no one acts on the garbage.
Plenty of other outlets, however.
I want responsible journalism. Should I put it in quotes? Okay.
“Responsible journalism”
And I’m not at all sure those poor dead people were practicing it. They paid too dearly.
1 Like
You’re not alone in this. Stephen Maturin was saying earlier that although the murderers are obviously not justified, the journalists contributed to the situation with poor judgment. I’ve personally seen instances of anti-muslim bigotry and general bigotry in France—a graffito that says “Europe Blanche” is hard to misinterpret. Another thing: I read quotes from numerous Muslim groups in Europe condemning the violence forthrightly. And one more thing, and Stephen I hope you see this: I feel sorry for the family of Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim who was essentially a beat cop just doing his job who died because of extremist violence directed at a journalistic outlet. Just a guy doing his job, looking out for people, trying to keep the peace. This wasn’t his fight and it’s a shame. And yet I think freedom of speech is pretty much inviolate, and the freedom doesn’t matter much except when the speech is, in fact, offensive. So I don’t know where to draw the line. Personally I don’t care to aggravate any volatile situation, but I can’t demand that everyone follow that guideline. I think freedom of speech matters. But I can’t make that choice for poor Ahmed Merabet, or his family.
Thing is, those who were killed today in Paris are not journalists but cartoonists, the paper version of Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert, to name two known names. Satire, making fun of everybody and everything that caught their attention was their thing. Would you have concocted such thoughts if laying on a morgue cold table were Jon and Stephen instead of those poor souls perished in the Charlie Hebdo attack?
1 Like
Ha!
No question. And, of course, it’s walking a fine line to raise these questions without exposing one’s self to the accusation of being a victim-blamer from those who resist the introspection.
1 Like
To which middle east are you referring?
South isn’t so great either.
What they did, I think, was far beyond what Stewart and Colbert do. These cartoonists attacked “Jesus”. (Yes, fill in the blanks.)
Would have been better to attack the nutjobs who think their beliefs are the only ones that should be adhered to.
There are smarter and more responsible ways to do this.
No thanks, we’ll wait for a source we don’t have to shower after we visit to get the stink off us.