Wow....talk about a spin on the topic....seriously? Paris terror attack: Journalism is under fire

This is one of the craziest spins I think I have ever read on the media. So they are saying that courageous journalism is what the case was here? Someone making light of others in cartoons is now considered courageous and that media outlets are all seen as courageous journalists? This may be the most ridiculous piece of writing I have EVER seen.

The danger now is that journalists around the world will engage in self-censorship, that they will pull back on aggressive reporting and analysis of Islamic terrorism. For every potentially provocative article, headline or cartoon, some will ask themselves, is this worth the risk?

www.foxnews.com...

I think the true danger is the spin that media puts on topics in the first place. I have feelings on both sides in this case, but for the media to immediately put a spin on this and say it is going to hurt their ability to report on stories seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

Media should have quit putting a spin on things long ago, and this likely would not have happened...this is ridiculous to me.

Exposing the absurdity of extreme religion, party politics, or anything really, is oftentimes done using sarcasm. I think the article is spot on. It is courageous journalism, especially if the method of exposing the subject's absurdity was done under past threats.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

No, they are saying that extremists are killing journalist for expressing views that the extremists don't agree with, and that they fear the terrorism will intimidate journalists.

In this case it was a cartoon. Tomorrow it could be an editorial. Next week it could be for simply reporting a story.

It isn't being reported like that in the UK.

Though UK news tends to be a bit more 'matter of fact' than US news IMO.

originally posted by: Jamie1
a reply to: Vasa Croe

No, they are saying that extremists are killing journalist for expressing views that the extremists don't agree with, and that they fear the terrorism will intimidate journalists.

In this case it was a cartoon. Tomorrow it could be an editorial. Next week it could be for simply reporting a story.

Right, but the hypocrisy is what I find amazing about this article. Reporters constantly use sensationalism for their stories, as evidenced in most headlines recently. For this story to say that this type of journalism is courageous is a joke. Journalism for any major outlet is skewed....I would not say it is courageous to write about things at all.....it isn't like this new outlet was in NK or some other oppressed country...they were in France. Courageous seems to have taken on a new meaning I guess.

A media outlet is using a crisis to boost ratings?

Say it ain't so!

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
A media outlet is using a crisis to boost ratings?

Say it ain't so!

Yeah.....part of my point as well....hypocrisy here is really astounding....I am a bit dumbfounded as to how they have spun this in the article.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Jamie1
a reply to: Vasa Croe

No, they are saying that extremists are killing journalist for expressing views that the extremists don't agree with, and that they fear the terrorism will intimidate journalists.

In this case it was a cartoon. Tomorrow it could be an editorial. Next week it could be for simply reporting a story.

Right, but the hypocrisy is what I find amazing about this article. Reporters constantly use sensationalism for their stories, as evidenced in most headlines recently. For this story to say that this type of journalism is courageous is a joke. Journalism for any major outlet is skewed....I would not say it is courageous to write about things at all.....it isn't like this new outlet was in NK or some other oppressed country...they were in France. Courageous seems to have taken on a new meaning I guess.

Yeah, I agree with that 100%. Snarky cartoons being defined as courageous is a joke.

So "self censorship" and press manipulation never existed before?

Sounds like they are pretending it never did and it doesn't now.

Another good psy-ops.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Right, but the hypocrisy is what I find amazing about this article. Reporters constantly use sensationalism for their stories, as evidenced in most headlines recently. For this story to say that this type of journalism is courageous is a joke. Journalism for any major outlet is skewed....I would not say it is courageous to write about things at all.....it isn't like this new outlet was in NK or some other oppressed country...they were in France. Courageous seems to have taken on a new meaning I guess.

They had received threats in the past, though. And yet, they didn't back down and continued doing their job, which led to the murder of many people today. Sure, it's not like those journalists were investigating IS, following them and taking hidden pictures of them. But their opinions were known for upsetting some violent people, and they refused to give in.

There are many types of bravery and courage. Some people fight with their bodies, others fight with their words.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

IIRC this has happened before; fundamentalists have a penchant for being outraged and threatening retaliation on anyone who dares mock/question/criticize them. When this threat is readily apparent, it is no less courageous than a whistle-blower risking jail-time for whistle-blowing.

No doubt people will argue that it is irresponsible to mock someone holding a gun to your head for mocking them, but if we can't safely live in a world where you can't criticize people who devalue human life and take their extremism with a side of violence then bring on the nuclear Armageddon.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Looks about right to me. Journalists across the world are going to overreact with fear and self-censor themselves when in reality, they should be doing more journalism like what caused the attack to show that they aren't afraid of violent threats.

And yes, the article by Charlie Hebdo is courageous journalism. It was a satirical piece directed at muslim terrorists. They got offended and attacked, which isn't surprising given the demographic. Hebdo was playing with fire there and they got burnt, unfortunately this is going to be blown WAY out of proportion causing all sorts of unnecessary fear (which basically means that the terrorists accomplished what they set out to accomplish).

I applaud FoxNews for once. They are pointing out that journalists shouldn't cower in fear because a few terrorists get their panties in a knot over a cartoon.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I guess I'm not understanding your pov. If you are writing about a crazy lunatic religious ideology and using satire as your style to make your point, and that very same bunch of lunatics threaten to kill you for it, but you continue to expose their ideology as ridiculous AND dangerous anyway, YOU don't think that is being courageous? We all know that the West has been infiltrated and/or have homegrown radical Islamists within their borders even as we speak, so I fail to see where the country matters.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
A media outlet is using a crisis to boost ratings?

Say it ain't so!

Yeah.....part of my point as well....hypocrisy here is really astounding....I am a bit dumbfounded as to how they have spun this in the article.

I wish I could say I was surprised that someone would pounce on the crisis for their own gain, but I'm really not.

originally posted by: LukeDAP
There are many types of bravery and courage. Some people fight with their bodies, others fight with their words.

Exactly, just like my sig says..."The pen is mightier than the sword"

These guys were brave, it takes a lot of courage to continue doing what you do in the face of threats, whether I agree with the extreme left wing journal or not, this was an attack on freedom of expression, as if that really existed anyway.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I guess I'm not understanding your pov. If you are writing about a crazy lunatic religious ideology and using satire as your style to make your point, and that very same bunch of lunatics threaten to kill you for it, but you continue to expose their ideology as ridiculous AND dangerous anyway, YOU don't think that is being courageous? We all know that the West has been infiltrated and/or have homegrown radical Islamists within their borders even as we speak, so I fail to see where the country matters.

My POV is that this article is calling satirical journalism, courageous journalism.

And the fact that the paper, Charlie Hebdo, is a satirical publication matters not at all, since satire can sting as sharply as any media commentary — especially when it comes to the sensitive subject of religion.

This is not courageous journalism. The fact they have previously been threatened doesn't make it any more courageous. It is actually doing a disservice to real media outlets by lending credibility to a satirical publication because of an attack on the publication headquarters.

I find the sensationalist view of the article about how this is going to affect true journalism laughable. Journalists have been killed plenty of times while reporting real news, and by terrorists....this place, while it was a tragedy, it not a real news outlet....to lend it the credibility of being such by calling the cartoonists and satirists courageous journalists is a farce in my opinion.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I guess I'm not understanding your pov. If you are writing about a crazy lunatic religious ideology and using satire as your style to make your point, and that very same bunch of lunatics threaten to kill you for it, but you continue to expose their ideology as ridiculous AND dangerous anyway, YOU don't think that is being courageous? We all know that the West has been infiltrated and/or have homegrown radical Islamists within their borders even as we speak, so I fail to see where the country matters.

My POV is that this article is calling satirical journalism, courageous journalism.

to lend it the credibility of being such by calling the cartoonists and satirists courageous journalists is a farce in my opinion.

To me, what I find a ridiculous farce is that a joke can cost you your life as well as the lives of your work colleagues.

I also find satire to be some of the most edge pushing and "brave" forms of journalism that exists.
Investigative journalism has died a death, thank god for satire.
Im sorry you disagree.

a reply to: OneManArmy

Exactly. Satire is some of the most brilliant and thought provoking comedy you can engage in. It certainly shows the intelligent people and the people pretending to be intelligent, since the latter generally don't get the jokes and get offended.

I will defend satire until I am blue in the face as it is one of the last bastions of genuinely intelligent art being produced (not that other arts aren't producing intelligent pieces, they are just diluted with too much crap).

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OneManArmy

Exactly. Satire is some of the most brilliant and thought provoking comedy you can engage in. It certainly shows the intelligent people and the people pretending to be intelligent, since the latter generally don't get the jokes and get offended.

I will defend satire until I am blue in the face as it is one of the last bastions of genuinely intelligent art being produced (not that other arts aren't producing intelligent pieces, they are just diluted with too much crap).

Yes, yes , yes. I agree 100%.

I would also go so far as to say that satire is some of the most honest of journalism in this current world.

My favorite satirical show is Charlie Brookers "Newswipe". Very funny and very very thought provoking, I recommend it to everybody.