News next: a journalism teacher's diary

January 9, 2015

Should news outlets reprint the Charlie Hebdo cartoons?

Filed under: None — Bernard L. Stein @ 4:46 pm
Tags: , , ,
European newspapers reproduced the controversial cartoons in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo.

European newspapers reproduced the controversial cartoons in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo.

Twenty-five years ago, I watched flames consume the office of The Riverdale Press, the community newspaper my father had founded and I had edited for a decade.

The issue on the newsstand that week included an editorial that defended our right to read Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses. When I wrote it, I never imagined that it would make my newspaper an early victim of terrorism.

The editorial criticized the big bookstore chains—Barnes & Noble, Waldenbooks and B. Dalton—for pulling the book from their shelves. Its central argument was: “To suppress a book or punish an idea is to express contempt for the people who read the book or consider the idea. In preferring the logic of the executioner to the logic of debate, the book burners and the Ayatollah Khomeini display their distrust for the principle on which self-government rests, the wisdom and virtue of ordinary people.”

The shattered Riverdale Press office: 1989.

The shattered Riverdale Press office: 1989.

I thought that was motherhood and apple pie. We’ve all learned differently since then, most recently in the horrific assassinations at the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

When The Press fought back–by bringing out its next issue on time a day after the bombing, by continuing its tradition of hard-hitting opinion writing, by publishing a defense of Rushdie on the anniversary of the bombing for the next 10 years—it had help.

Residents, elected officials and community leaders, including many who had criticized the paper in the past, rallied behind it. But the most important source of aid came from the state’s other community newspapers. They reprinted the editorial that had provoked the bombing.

Together with its publication by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the Congressional Record and its reproduction in New York Newsday, they brought the message of a 13,000-circulation newspaper to a million readers, a stinging defeat for the terrorists who had sought to suppress it.

In letters and conversations, many editors of those little weekly newspapers around the state told me that they were frightened about the consequences of publishing the editorial about The Satanic Verses. Some also said they disagreed with it; they believed that it was wrong to ridicule religion or thought that Rushdie should have known better that to bait devout Muslims. Nevertheless, they published the editorial because they wanted to stand in solidarity with The Press and with the principle that argument, not violence, was the way to express disagreement.

Sadly, most American news outlets, including The New York Times, the Associated Press and the major broadcast and cable news networks, have flinched from publishing the controversial cartoons that incited the bloodbath in Paris. Worse, some have used technology to blur the images, as if they were obscene, or so horrific that readers and viewers needed to be shielded from them.

In justification some have said that they found the cartoons disagreeable or crude or childish or needlessly provocative. Those judgments are condescending toward readers and viewers, who are deprived of the opportunity to judge for themselves. They also miss the point.

The issue is no longer whether Charlie Hebdo’s demonstrated contempt for Islam (and religion generally) is justified. It is certainly not whether its means of expressing that contempt is effective.

The murders call for us to defend the principle that in a free society no doctrine should be exempt from criticism and no criticism should be punished by violence.

The refusal of leading American news outlets to reprint the Charlie Hebdo cartoons declares that in perilous times there are visions that must not be imagined and thoughts that must not be uttered.

It is a victory for the forces of silence.

Advertisements

January 30, 2011

You can take pictures of federal buildings

Filed under: None — Bernard L. Stein @ 10:51 am
Tags: , , , ,

Federal courthouse, Foley Square, New York City

Federal Protective Service Information Bulletin of Aug. 2, 2010, emphasizes “the public’s right to photograph the exterior of federal facilities” from “publicly accessible spaces such as streets, sidewalks, parks and plazas.” It also states that in a field interview, “officers should not seize the camera or its contents, and must be cautious not to give such ‘orders’ to a photographer to erase the contents of a camera.”

In response to a successful lawsuit in October 2010, in January 2011, the New York Civil Liberties Union received a federal directive making it clear that photographers have the right to photograph federal installations from a public place, The New York Times reported on Jan. 27.

The Times includes this link, and suggests printing out the bulletin to show to officers who question you.

February 28, 2010

Don’t shoot: journalist

Filed under: None — Bernard L. Stein @ 10:54 am
Tags: , , , , , , ,

The CUNY Graduate School of Journalism and the Knight Citizens News Network have collaborated on a terrific guide to avoiding the pitfalls of publication. I urge you to take a look.

It has always been dangerous to tell the world what you think or what you know. Just ask Galileo or Thomas More. But if publishing your thoughts and findings has always been risky, in the world created by the internet, where anyone has access to an audience, it has become riskier still, and on a far larger scale.

Whether you’re posting to the blog for this class or your Facebook page, you’re publishing. You need to be aware of the rules and the risks that come with gathering information and disseminating it. (more…)

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.