41–50 of 65 posts
I honestly find it quite surprising that most of the US media bowed to the demands of the terrorists, since the US is normally considered a bastion of free speech.
Those cartoons are offensive to a group of religious people. The cartoonists had the right to freely express themselves. All of us should defend their right to express their opinions, but we don't have to agree with them and popularize something we disagree with. I think the NYT, CNN, Fox News, etc. made the right decision not showing these offensive images.
It's definitely their decision but here is my thought: A news story just broke in which people were killed because of certain images. Is it not good journalism to show the images that caused the attack?
Or not showing naked leaked photos of Jennifer Lawrence.
Those cartoons are offensive to a group of religious people. The cartoonists had the right to freely express themselves. All of us should defend their right to express their opinions, but we don't have to agree with them and popularize something we disagree with. I think the NYT, CNN, Fox News, etc. made the right decision not showing these offensive images.
It's definitely their decision but here is my thought: A news story just broke in which people were killed because of certain images. Is it not good journalism to show the images that caused the attack?
Nobody gets upset when they replace the word "nigger" with the phrase "the 'N' word", so why get upset over this?
Those cartoons are offensive to a group of religious people. The cartoonists had the right to freely express themselves. All of us should defend their right to express their opinions, but we don't have to agree with them and popularize something we disagree with. I think the NYT, CNN, Fox News, etc. made the right decision not showing these offensive images.
If you can't say things that will offend people YOU DON'T HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
It's that simple
And I'd MUCH rather live in a world where we can offend Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Cientologists, etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Islam isn't a race. Racist merely because many Muslims share an ethnicity in France? But then, they weren't skewering only Islam. I'm genuinely trying to understand this criticism.
Point, but the destructive views of minorities promoted by this publication is classic imperialist journalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely their decision but here is my thought: A news story just broke in which people were killed because of certain images. Is it not good journalism to show the images that caused the attack?
No, I don't think it would be "good journalism," it'd be "sensationalist journalism." Nobody gets upset when they replace the word "nigger" with the phrase "the 'N' word", so why get upset over this?
"He was shot because he called him the N word" vs "He was shot because he published these images".
I understand the former pretty easily but the latter I'd want to know what the images contained (especially from a news organization).
That something offended religious extremist don't mean that it didn't offended non-extremists too. But if you keep offending them some could become extremist too eventually. Is that the final motivation?
I like this solution to the problem: The Charlie X method http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-09/charlie-x-solution