Always-honest
Banned
I think in general there were things that journalists did without really thinking. They really spilled some beans.
For journalists these lives don't matter. Just the news.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Charlie Hebdo attacks - Hostage situations ended, 4 hostages reportedly killed
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
For journalists these lives don't matter. Just the news.
BaronLundi
Member
Well I don't know... all sources of the official release (in French) are dated from today.
Edit: oh, i saw your edit. Yeah, that's the one I was talking about.
... you know this picture is actually satirizing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rassemblement_bleu_Marine, right?
DiipuSurotu
Banned
Eww. Thank goodness they didn't die :/
http://www.bfmtv.com/societe/prise-...ignage-du-salarie-qui-s-est-enfui-856691.html
According to this, the terrorist did learn at some point that there were people down there, and he sent a hostage to ask them to go upstairs. It's all very confusing.
Yeah you're obviously not french and are taking things way out of context. This is what I was talking about earlier.
The woman in the drawing is Taubira, the Minister of Justice, who at the time was the target of racist attacks by Front National (comparison to a monkey in a magazine + some stuff with a banana in the assembly I think).
Charlie Hebdo is using almost word for word the Front National slogan, replacing "Marine" by "Racist" + showing the FN logo.
They're denouncing the racist shit the FN keeps pulling off and absolutely everyone seems to take this drawing as proof that they're racist, truly sad.
You might consider it racist if you completely ignore the context of the picture.
If you do that then, well, that's your problem.
I thought so. Especially when the picture is to be found just on twitter and couple of blogs playing the "let's blame the victims" game. And posted after attack
YES thank you. I don't know why people can't understand this, maybe it's cultural. It's using racism to make fun of it.
We had plenty of that type of humor when I was still a kid, sadly it mostly disappeared because people are dumb. Charlie Hebdo was probably the last remnant of that stuff.
The way BFMTV mutes her, realizing their mistake as she speaks...
This deserves a heavy sanction.
Yeah, and they were referring to the Minute cover too.
It's the same as Colbert with his character, I assume everyone gets that?
One of the cartoonist was Moroccan ( Zineb something ) and one of the proofreader (is it the right word for someone who checks grammar and typos etc... ?) was an algerian who was recently naturalized.Pretty hard to label them as racists.
They also helpled a lot of tunisian and algerian political activists to get asylum in France. They milited a lot against the french far-right party party, going as far as contributing to a petition asking for the dissolution of the party.
Once the dust's settled and everyone's had a chance to grieve, there's some serious questions that need answering regarding how news channels cover developing events.
So far we've had:
1. Accusations the media messed with/delayed the special forces entering the premises
2. The murdered policeman's widow finding out about her husband's death via the video they aired
3. As above, terrorist (almost?) finding out about the hidden hostages
ComputerMKII
Banned
Front page of Le Journal du Dimanche (weekly newspaper published on sundays):
Also, the mother of the dead policewoman learned about the fate of her daughter by listening to the radio.
Alx
Member
There is also all the real time reporting of any of the police move during both sieges. Also several false alarms reported before confirmation.
Freedom of the press is great, but I think in such situations the police should be able to make them withhold information until it's safe to share it, since the journalists can't be trusted to do it by themselves.
Sorry, the forum remember I quoted you earlier, and I hadn't noticed before posting.
(Note: this is from a different article, I was talking about his other one)
I still fail to see how it's "obviously" racist, or I missed some cartoons.
I'd say that there's justice to say what's racist and what's not. You're free to think it is, I differ.
The fact that they were sued, and they NEVER have been found guilty of racism. In fact, they nearly never lost a trial (a couple, to be honest... one for depicting a ministry in a nazy outfit, one for calling soldiers "murderers", two for insulting a right-wing politics, one for mentioning a condamnation of someone who has been relaxed later...)
But NONE over racism, and NONE in the last 10 years.
And before you conclude that justice is ok with racism here, there's plently of condamnations all over the place, so that argument is void.
Beside, if it was racist, there would have been a couple people working there who woulkd have left.
You can refuse printing the mahomet cartoons in fear that it would be seen as provocative (it is), and not necessarily because it's racist. There's a STRONG difference between the two.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Always-honest
Banned
No problem
My god. There have to be stricter rules for media during hostage takings.
ComputerMKII
Banned
Should I make a new thread about the massive demonstrations tomorrow or should we keep using this one?
I'll trust you on the latter, but the former, definitively.
I loved how Desproge (a french humorist of the 70s) talked about Minute:
"it's really a great value! For 1$, you have all the best of Jean-Paul Sartre: Nausea *and* Dirty Hands."
I think there should be a new thread. It's an important event, historical even, given who is participating.
I agree. Also this thread was about an ongoing situation that is now finished. Time to look at what is coming next.
ComputerMKII
Banned
Yes, as other have said, you don't really have a clue of what's depicted there.
They were mocking some racists in the french left-wing that associated the french ministry of justice with a monkey.
They were doing exactly *the opposite* of a racist cartoon on this one... Many people have been found guilty of associating the ministry and a monkey (or banana, or anything), there wasn't even a trial against Charlie Hebdo because the message behind this is obvious to anyone that was in France at this time.
I can easily understand how it can be read backwards without the context. But believe me, there's not a single doubt in this one that they're fighting AGAINST racism there.
Yes, there should be one dedicated to tomorrow's march, you're absolutely right.
Some more fuel about this: Charb's take about the situation (and the reason of the cartoon):
Quick'n dirty:
(I apologize for my less-than-average english skills)
Accidentally deleted my post with individual replies but this will do for a few of the same:
"This is what they think"
...as an excuse to post racist imagery - to clarify, a black woman who is in their government as a monkey.
Satire takes wit.
We have the Times outright calling the cartoons previously in question as not satire - just overly offensive.
I guess those guys in the business don't understand the concept either.
Like it has been said, there is a fine line and Charlie Hebdo isn't above it.
I'm not sure how you expect to use the courts as proof they use racist imagery when it's legal for them to publish the hate speech under the banner of free speech.
Here's how it'd go down if they tried it in the UK.
.
Or an American University Campus in the last 20 years.
I don't know about too many of the cases they lost but I did read about this one which conflicts with the idea of them being about the freedom to insult all:
They fired one of their own authors and asked him to make an apology before being taken to court:
He won that case against Charlie Hebdo. €90K paid in damages.
Don't try and defend people either though:
"any objections" -- (this is for those who saw their video of when they drew the cartoons, it's what the guy said at the end).
To your last sentence, their ultimate reason for not reposting the cartoons was mentioned, I posted it too. They specified they didn't see it as satire, just as an insult.
There is a big difference between showing respect and being fearful too.
Like you can have decent standards while also showing support to victims.
Easier to accept.
"This is what they think"
...as an excuse to post racist imagery - to clarify, a black woman who is in their government as a monkey.
Satire takes wit.
We have the Times outright calling the cartoons previously in question as not satire - just overly offensive.
I guess those guys in the business don't understand the concept either.
Like it has been said, there is a fine line and Charlie Hebdo isn't above it.
I'm not sure how you expect to use the courts as proof they use racist imagery when it's legal for them to publish the hate speech under the banner of free speech.
Here's how it'd go down if they tried it in the UK.
.
Or an American University Campus in the last 20 years.
I don't know about too many of the cases they lost but I did read about this one which conflicts with the idea of them being about the freedom to insult all:
They fired one of their own authors and asked him to make an apology before being taken to court:
He won that case against Charlie Hebdo. €90K paid in damages.
Don't try and defend people either though:
"any objections" -- (this is for those who saw their video of when they drew the cartoons, it's what the guy said at the end).
To your last sentence, their ultimate reason for not reposting the cartoons was mentioned, I posted it too. They specified they didn't see it as satire, just as an insult.
There is a big difference between showing respect and being fearful too.
Like you can have decent standards while also showing support to victims.
Easier to accept.
France is big supporters of Palestine. They do not want to be associated with this nonsense, and thus lose credibility among French supporters.
The very same principles allow the french to support Palestine and allow Charlie hebdo to do what they do..
It's not pretending that "this is what they think", that was really what they (ring wing) did think. It's not invented. It's mocking a real event.
Yeah, I don't buy this. (and it's not even satire what you are doing but if you feel the need to insult to support your argument, be free to do it)
Oups, yes, my bad...
I definitively don't think that's hate speech (and justice don't either).
That's a more complex (and shady) affair than that. He was most probably fired for other reason that the one that served as pretense (most probably because different views over a lawyer, working both for Charlie Hebdo and in a unrelated affair they wanted to criticize openly). It's a bit complex, so I'm reluctant to make a giant case here.
There's plently of satyric cartoons against the jews, anyway, so I don't really see the point. They were even more aggresive against Catholics, too, and I definitively don't see the journal as favoring jews. Especially when they're against all religions.
Even if that's their opinion, that doesn't make it right... Plently of other newspaper disagree.
French justice disagrees, too (they were sued for this and won...)
Beside, it may be true that such a newspaper could not exist in britain/USA. I'm not sure it's for the better. Many comments in the articles you posted aren't either.
Flintty
Member
Sadly there was too much of this throughout the whole affair. The media are a fucking shambles. I hate the UK media but for all their faults, I know that would never happen here.
ComputerMKII
Banned
People from Lyon managed to make a "pirate" edition of Charlie Hebdo, called "Charlie Héros", in 48 hours. It's dedicated to the victims of the attacks and you can read it for free, here: http://fr.slideshare.net/france_inter/charlie-hros
Front page:
Translation:
€73,000 for the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo on eBay!
"Shit!"
Front page:
Translation:
€73,000 for the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo on eBay!
"Shit!"
| Praxis |
Banned
No, they just access murdered children's voicemail, leading to the parents thinking she was alive.
Fuck's sake, we had to go into this at length in the other thread as well.
You, and the ill-informed articles you and Lime keep posting, are flat-out wrong. Not to mention insulting to the victims. And if you think posting an image without context to make your point is effective then you are clearly not the type of person to want to understand the satire in the first place.
Stop doing it.
Palette Swap
Member
That woman taking shots at BFM is right, reporting live that they had information that people were hidden in cold storage was incredibly irresponsible. I seriously hope they get punished for that.
Edit: people going out of their way to paint Charlie as racist are out of their depth and in poor taste.
Edit: people going out of their way to paint Charlie as racist are out of their depth and in poor taste.
m_shortpants
Member
Interesting contrast:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...arges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...arges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html
I listened to a sky reporter try and sneak into the Raul Moat (whatever the fuck his name was) altercation live. Hardly like the UK press are different.
Always-honest
Banned
Mnnn....
It's hard to prove a cartoon is racist without going heavy into stereotypes and style, especially when it's not as simple as a black person being drawn as a monkey. Yes I know they were saying that's how others saw her. You'd think a national magazine would know better than to proliferate racism like that, even if it was 'indirect'.
Like others have published, they had no grace in what they were doing and went over the line - sometimes far from satire, and they shouldn't be respected for that.
Before the OP and others jump down my throat again, no, that doesn't mean they deserve violent retaliation but I would have hoped that it was obvious that has nothing to do with what I'm posting about. Victim blaming is not what this is about. It's about calling a spade a spade and not giving an excuse to promote xenophobia more than it already has been.
Anyway, you could insult the most radical muslim pretty easily these days and show the hypocrisy of claiming to be religious whilst supporting violent acts.
That's valued. There's benefit there.
Especially if it pushes people to confront ideas that are otherwise backwards but close to their scripting. It might be offensive, but it has some benefit, even if it's not really tangible. I'll admit that is what they do in some cartoon cases.
At the same time there is a limit to what should be acceptable insult and provocation, something others (and other countries) usually recognize.*
I'd argue that happens when you provokingly and strongly insult the actual beliefs of over a billion people unnecessarily and in a mocking fashion.
I'm told those limits also exist in France, and from what I can tell with that previous court case I mentioned - to any degree when it suits the elite, seemingly just not for the muslim populace.
Who are already considered to be facing strong discrimination in France, not to mention troubled with their own daily terrorism elsewhere - that I should mention wasn't all that common until recently with the Iraq war and interesting series of events that were the arab spring.
Repeated insult can take its toll on some, in various forms.
So do you then retroactively support the offenses because 2 out of the billion attacked them for the cartoons?
Yes it shows support.
Yes it shows resilience to violence and terrorism.
But it also helps to fester it - the supposed opposite intent of the drawings in the first place. Not to mention furthering the hatred and discrimination their message contains.
Both of the above things can be done without also claiming to be Charles Hebdo.
Just for a different comparison, if someone got sick of WestBoro Baptist Church and their awful shenanigans and attacked them viciously.
Do we show our support to the WBC victims by regurgitating their claims under a banner of free speech?
Out of curiosity would that also be a terrorist attack? They were trying to silence the hateful preaching of WBC, something permitted to them by freedom of speech in US.
Maybe some of you would if their original message was something you've been wanting to spread yourself but have been afraid to due to legit accusations of being politically incorrect which tends to be ignored during the heat of the moment of these situations. Somehow I feel like that wouldn't be too many considering what is and isn't up for game these days.
*I admit it's confusing to hear David Cameron show so much support for not the victims ( Hamas does that too) but for the idea that they were protecting freedom of speech.
That type of free speech would be illegal here in the UK.
Whilst actual freedom and liberties and reporting of those things get...well:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...sed-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq
BreezyLimbo
Banned
It's a yahoo link so sorry if it's inaccurate, but apparently the wife of the guy who held up the grocery store left France and went to Turkey.
http://news.yahoo.com/france-pursues-female-suspect-deadly-siege-131442961.html
http://news.yahoo.com/france-pursues-female-suspect-deadly-siege-131442961.html
You've already posted a lot of nonsense, but a comparison with WBC now? Seriously?
Fucking hell.
We should be able to mock everything and everyone. We shouldn't care whether we offend people based on a religion they chose.
In actually attempting an analogy with WBC you don't have a clue what the FUCK you are talking about.
I'll just repost from the other thread and hope you get better informed than the ignorance you are parroting.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507729/the-satirical-cartoon-cover-that-defines-charlie-hebdo
Read it all, here's some key bits though:
On the nature of, and need for, their satire:
This sums is up perfectly:
All these "I'm for free speech but don't be an asshole!" articles are missing the point of, and the need for, the satire, skirting just this side of victim-blaming and insulting them and their reputation in the process.
It's profoundly ignorant.
If they were just laughing at extremists, that wouldn't be an issue. They were heavily insulting every muslim.
While my post doesn't compare to equate them, WBC and CH both gain financially from spreading messages that insult others, doing so under the banner of free speech.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked