Charlie Hebdo massacre - 2015-Jan-07 (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Maddy
- Start date
He's making irrelevant points and doesn't seem to understand that killing journalists is one thing (Serbia and Gaza examples) and killing journalists because of what they have written/drawn is a completely different thing. Not that one is less horrendous than the other but the contexts are different so comparing the two to show the hypocrisy of the West's propaganda campaign is absurd.
Different contexts yes but does not negate the responsibility a journalist carries with the pen. That is not to say any of them deserved the horrendous deaths, of course not but journalists yield a powerful responsibility and with how things are in the media now they seem to have forgotten that - I dont need to look far I just have to read the local papers.
My honest opinion, I find it hard to believe if those cartoons are for purposes other than provocation. Tackling issues like terrorism whilst still being funny and intelligent CAN be achieved, just watch Four Lions.
My honest opinion, I find it hard to believe if those cartoons are for purposes other than provocation. Tackling issues like terrorism whilst still being funny and intelligent CAN be achieved, just watch Four Lions.
I don't approve of what Charlie Hebdo did either. I had the chance to read a Farsi translation of their last issue and god was it so cheap. As for Chomsky, he's to say that Western governments are only selectively supporting freedom of speech, which I agree with, but what does that have to with the killing of Palestinian and Serbian journalists?
Wait, I'm not sure I understand? Are you implying that the journalists killed in Serbia and Gaza were not killed because of what they wrote/covered? Because you'd be completely wrong if you were.
He does make a valid point though, for some reason when countries/governments kill in foreign lands it is deemed a lot more acceptable, when it isn't IMO. Nato purposefully bombed Serbian State TV, and as much as I thought they were disgusting propagandists, it is/was definitely a war crime. The same can be said of Israel's blatant targeting of journalists.
I wouldn't say the media is engaging in deliberate propaganda, but I'd definitely say there is a sub conscious bias involved. The way the Charlie Hebdo journalists were killed was definitely horrific, but are the Serb journalists lives any less valuable? again, I'm not saying or implying there is any deliberate propaganda involved, but natural sub conscious bias, journalists were massacred close to home, people can relate to that a lot more than they can relate to Serbian journalists involved in propaganda.
I'm not sure how Goebbels is relevant to this discussion, unless you're comparing the Serb journalists to Goebbels because they too engaged in propaganda?
He does make a valid point though, for some reason when countries/governments kill in foreign lands it is deemed a lot more acceptable, when it isn't IMO. Nato purposefully bombed Serbian State TV, and as much as I thought they were disgusting propagandists, it is/was definitely a war crime. The same can be said of Israel's blatant targeting of journalists.
I wouldn't say the media is engaging in deliberate propaganda, but I'd definitely say there is a sub conscious bias involved. The way the Charlie Hebdo journalists were killed was definitely horrific, but are the Serb journalists lives any less valuable? again, I'm not saying or implying there is any deliberate propaganda involved, but natural sub conscious bias, journalists were massacred close to home, people can relate to that a lot more than they can relate to Serbian journalists involved in propaganda.
I'm not sure how Goebbels is relevant to this discussion, unless you're comparing the Serb journalists to Goebbels because they too engaged in propaganda?
His point are rather "meh", altho I share his criticism of France.
His piece sure as fuck shows why Freedom of Speech should be protected and sacred in any democratic and free society. Which is a sentiment Chomsky shares.
http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2014/02/...-in-usa-has-been-increasing-through-activism/
- - - Updated - - -
Cultural thing. Look up the history of Satire and you'll (perhaps) understand why it's specifically protected by the constitution in countries like Germany and Italy and in general in most other democratic societies.
His piece sure as fuck shows why Freedom of Speech should be protected and sacred in any democratic and free society. Which is a sentiment Chomsky shares.
http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2014/02/...-in-usa-has-been-increasing-through-activism/
- - - Updated - - -
Cultural thing. Look up the history of Satire and you'll (perhaps) understand why it's specifically protected by the constitution in countries like Germany and Italy and in general in most other democratic societies.
I've relatively little interest in history, but I have read the book, doesn't that give me a good basis to discuss whether the book could have been a reason behind a war? I have started to doubt whether you have read it, since You still haven't provided any specific verses of the Bible in support of Crusades or at least a wild theory about the theology behind Crusades. If you haven't read the book I don't think we should continue, I've no interest in countering arguments like "I've heard that the Old Testament is that and that".
I know what satire is, and have grown up with Western media and entertainment all my life. Given the series of cartoon covers directed at terrorism/the Prophet by Charlie Hebdo, I find it difficult to believe it is purely 'satirical'. But on my part at the end of the day those are just cartoons, if you don't like em don't read em.
I think the issues at hand are:
1. As a journalist/cartoonist/anyone that yields any power in media, can you really draw/write something that will not offend? No, unless you play really nice or are completely objective, which is very unlikely.
2. Is it wrong for readers to be offended? Some think people are 'too serious' and the like, but I think it is easy for us to judge from our comfortable chairs - perhaps there are people out there who have been personally victimized from racism etc., and have truly suffered, and things like Charlie Hebdo cartoons just won't help your case.
In a way I can relate. I'm a Muslim in an Islamic democratic country, which comprises of 3 mainly different races and religions. When the media starts churning out stories about some radical Islamic organisations in Malaysia on the front cover of the paper, these people probably make up 1% of the Muslims in Malaysia - the rest of us don't think the same way, yet they are given the attention to be on the front page news, and it starts a chain/domino effect where the media then starts playing it up. These stories get shared on Facebook and I see my non-Muslim friends making comments about how Islam is radical and people are stupid who cannot think for themselves. How does this reflect on me and my family? My mother and sisters are sucessful in their careers, and wear the hijab on their own accord - they definitely do not 'believe' or 'think' blindly - yet because of some irresponsible journalism, people will already have judged us or have a certain perception towards us. I have a good friend who even wears the veil and she is one of the funniest people I know who watches 30 rock etc. But would anyone know that? No, because these people who usually comments on Muslims, don't really have or know a single practising Muslim as a close/good friend. But of course, they're the ones who know best right?
I think the issues at hand are:
1. As a journalist/cartoonist/anyone that yields any power in media, can you really draw/write something that will not offend? No, unless you play really nice or are completely objective, which is very unlikely.
2. Is it wrong for readers to be offended? Some think people are 'too serious' and the like, but I think it is easy for us to judge from our comfortable chairs - perhaps there are people out there who have been personally victimized from racism etc., and have truly suffered, and things like Charlie Hebdo cartoons just won't help your case.
In a way I can relate. I'm a Muslim in an Islamic democratic country, which comprises of 3 mainly different races and religions. When the media starts churning out stories about some radical Islamic organisations in Malaysia on the front cover of the paper, these people probably make up 1% of the Muslims in Malaysia - the rest of us don't think the same way, yet they are given the attention to be on the front page news, and it starts a chain/domino effect where the media then starts playing it up. These stories get shared on Facebook and I see my non-Muslim friends making comments about how Islam is radical and people are stupid who cannot think for themselves. How does this reflect on me and my family? My mother and sisters are sucessful in their careers, and wear the hijab on their own accord - they definitely do not 'believe' or 'think' blindly - yet because of some irresponsible journalism, people will already have judged us or have a certain perception towards us. I have a good friend who even wears the veil and she is one of the funniest people I know who watches 30 rock etc. But would anyone know that? No, because these people who usually comments on Muslims, don't really have or know a single practising Muslim as a close/good friend. But of course, they're the ones who know best right?
