We begin today's roundup with
Eugene Robinson at The Washington Post, who writes about self-censorship:
On the one hand, most editors do not want to gratuitously offend their readers; if offense is to be given, there should be a good reason. On the other hand, editors cannot accept being intimidated out of publishing certain material by threats of violence.
Right now, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the tendency must be to err on the side of defiance. News organizations have an obligation to demonstrate that they will not be cowed — and indeed, many are doing just that. But what happens a month from now, or a year from now?
I worry that the line between what is deemed publishable and what is not will shift subtly toward the side of caution. Most of the journalists I know seek to be discoverers of truth — and perhaps, through their truth-finding, instruments of justice. They do not actively seek to be martyrs.
Erik Wemple also examines how news organizations -- and CNN in particular -- make their editorial decisions:
Compelling as these arguments may sound, they boil down to a refusal to show the world as it is, to explain how events have evolved. They also express the mainstream media’s long-held belief in the fragility and naivete of its audience. Plus, who is the New York Times to judge the intentions of a cartoonist? How does the paper know what’s “deliberately” offensive? Would it publish “accidentally” offensive drawings? [...]
CNN’s front-liners were at risk before the Charlie Hebdo affair, and they’ll be at risk after the Charlie Hebdo affair, without regard to how CNN treats the magazine’s controversial drawings. For that matter, people sitting in their offices in Paris are obviously at risk now, too.
CNN is in the business of taking calculated risks to bring the truth to the public. This is one calculation that misfired.
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
John Nichols at The Nation:
When French officials proposed in 2012 to block demonstrations against the magazine, the editor objected, asking: “Why should they prohibit these people from expressing themselves? We have the right to express ourselves, they have the right to express themselves, too.”
This understanding is at the heart of a free society, and it is defended by journalists who are often attacked—sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly; sometimes by terrorists, sometimes by governments—not so much for their recognition of the importance of freedom of expression as for something far more meaningful: their daily practice of that freedom.
Michael Tomasky:
Have a look at this telling research from Pew on blasphemy and apostasy laws around the world. We do see that a few European countries have them on the books: Germany, Poland, Italy, Ireland, a couple more. In these countries, the punishment is typically a fine. Maybe in theory a short stint in the cooler, but in reality the laws in these countries are rarely enforced, and in some countries there hasn’t been a prosecution in years or decades.
But look at the Middle East. According to Pew, 14 of the 20 countries in the Middle East and North Africa have blasphemy laws. It’s by far the highest percentage of states in all the world’s regions as Pew breaks them down. As this list shows, punishments typically run to a short-ish jail sentence and/or a moderately hefty fine. But it can get worse: In Egypt in 2012, seven Egyptian Christians found guilty of making a movie that defamed Mohammed were sentenced to death.
On a final note,
Brian Gallagher explains why USA Today chose to run a piece by a radical cleric:
gnorance is not bliss, and the long contest against extremist Islam will not be won by donning blindfolds. As Sun Tzu said, "If ignorant of both your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril."
The same reasoning underlies our longstanding commitment to publishing an "opposing view" to the Editorial Board's "our view." If some readers are offended by an unpopular opinion, more are left better informed. [...]
French satirists were murdered for being bold enough to criticize Islam. We would have dishonored their memories by refusing to publish offensive commentary from the other side.