But we’re not talking other Islamist fanatics, we’re talking the Islamist fanatics who stormed a magazine to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws over the depiction of their prophet. Do you know something the rest of us don’t? This is very much about cartoons

GS: Because of the number of people who have been killed by Islamist fanatics around the world without having published any cartoons of anyone.

Ian: Yes, I realise that. Just saying the viewpoint – that there exists an acceptable rate of journalist attrition – is not limited to that one tweeter. I can’t speak for all journalists any more than a ‘moderate Muslim’ can speak for all Muslims, but in my opinion it’s a matter of choice, not self-censorship. Freedom of expression includes freedom of non-expression as well.

I think journalists would receive a more sympathetic reaction in this matter if they simply admitted self censorship out of fear rather than cultural respect.

Tom, I was referring specifically to your comment (shown below) regarding what one person said on Twitter :-

“(as someone said on Twitter the other day), how many bullets do they have?”

And why have you decided that, given all the evidence points to the contrary?

(Do a Columbo, do a Columbo…)

Boldface or no, they’re not killing for a cartoon. They’re killing for hatred and using a cartoon as an excuse.

I definitely didn’t put the cartoon in the same bracket as child abuse images. I put it in a different bracket. Three brackets: Innocuous in one, unpublishable in another, cartoons in the third along with others where editorial judgment is an issue.

But yes, it’s a poor comparison because actual children have been harmed. So let’s imagine something else. There is nothing intrinsically offensive or harmful about the letters F, U, C and K in that order. But because of what they mean in our language, and the cultural meaning of that particular expression, I wouldn’t want to see them in 140pt on the cover of CBeebies magazine. Were things different, and those letters didn’t spell out a swear word, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But things aren’t different, and they do, so I do. Would you?

You take your victim as you find them. You and your guest in the last instalment of your podcast (excellent, btw) make the point that most Muslims couldn’t give a flying one about cartoons of Mohammed. So causing offence to ordinary, reasonable people isn’t really an issue here. The issue is that we’re being told by strangers to make ourselves targets for the next murderous fanatic looking for an excuse, otherwise we’re cowards. And Ian, it’s far from one person’s comment on Twitter. It’s a widely held view, and one expressed in the comments above, which drew me into this thread.

So your reason not to publish the cartoon is because you fear insulting Islam. Why didn’t you just say that?

Also, I wouldn’t let one persons comment on Twitter get to you.

I disagree with pretty much all of that. I’ll explain why.

Some stories have images associated them which no organisation would dream of publishing (child abuse images, for example). Some have images associated with them which some would publish and others wouldn’t (such as dead bodies, images of abused animals etc.). The cartoons, because of their cultural context, fall into this last category.

I completely disagree with the false comparison being made here with dead bodies/child abuse etc. Before I address them, let’s keep in mind we are talking about a cartoon of a historical figure holding a sign saying ‘all is forgiven’

In regards to child abuse images; there are laws prohibiting the display of such images in the UK media – based on the age of the child and the images’ context/content. To protect the child. That’s why no organisation would ‘dream of publishing them’, it’s illegal. Who are we protecting when we refuse to publish the images of a dead historical figure? The Prophet? Hurt feelings?

Secondly, we do see images of dead bodies and abused animals on the news and across televised documentaries all the time. ‘Warning, the following may contain images that some viewers may find distressing’. Why is this warning suddenly not sufficient to images that may offend Islamic sensibilities? Why does Islam get a free pass? I think we know why. Let’s not continue this laughable pretense that cartoons of Muhammad are censored because their ‘cultural context’ puts them into the same bracket as images of animal cruelty/human or child abuse images. Journalists and the mainstream media are not trying to avoid distress or offence. They are trying to avoid reprisals.

‘Doing our job properly’ is to make that judgement honestly and according to our principles (those of us that have them).
I agree. And by trying to argue this has anything else other to do with fear is not honest.
Non-publication of the cartoons has not impaired anyone’s ability to tell the story of the murders, their perpetrators, the survivors or the wider issues.

You’re now trying to argue that not showing a cartoon central to the reporting of why some people feel a cartoon is worth killing for, has not ‘impaired anyone’s ability’ to report on this story of why people are killing for a cartoon. Can you think of any other context where you would omit a similarly innocuous cartoon that was central to a story of why people were killing for a cartoon?

I don’t actually believe my life would be in danger were my paper to publish the cartoon. But I find the ‘not enough bullets’ argument extremely distasteful, because it seems to take as its starting premise that my life would be in danger, but that’s OK because free speech.

Your life is in danger whether you publish these cartoons or not. You stand for everything Islamists hate, as does anyone who doesn’t share their fascist worldview. The point is, by not showing solidarity with other journalists and media professionals by ‘sharing the risk’, journalists made it a lot easier for employees of Charlie Hebdo to be slaughtered. They were alone before, and those that remain are alone now. Fellow journalists have failed them, and in turn – failed freedom of expression.

I can see the justification for publishing the cover as part of the story. But I can also see the arguments against doing so, and I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you think. Most images we consider for publication are completely benign. Some stories have images associated them which no organisation would dream of publishing (child abuse images, for example). Some have images associated with them which some would publish and others wouldn’t (such as dead bodies, images of abused animals etc). The cartoons, because of their cultural context, fall into this last category. ‘Doing our job properly’ is to make that judgment honestly and according to our principles (those of us that have them). Non-publication of the cartoons has not impaired anyone’s ability to tell the story of the murders, their perpetrators, the survivors or the wider issues.

I don’t actually believe my life would be in danger were my paper to publish the cartoon. But I find the ‘not enough bullets’ argument extremely distasteful, because it seems to take as its starting premise that my life would be in danger, but that’s OK because free speech.

Well, at least you admit your concerns are motivated by fear – which is something the mainstream media have been unwilling to concede. I can entirely respect your fears in this area.

But let’s not forget many journalists and publications throughout Europe and elsewhere have published the image – it’s mainly the U.K. and U.S. press that sacrificed their journalistic integrity in accordance with fascistic Islamic blasphemy laws. This sets a dangerous precedent.

The fact we are now in a position where the so-called ‘free press’ of the U.K. & the U.S. are now unable to broadcast a cartoon is a situation that cannot be highlighted enough.

Fine, as a journalist it’s your choice and your concerns may be valid. This doesn’t change the fact your ability to do your job properly has now been compromised.

You can either share the risk in your opposition to fascism, or compromise and self-censor your journalistic voice. It’s been made clear, without a doubt which choice our mainstream media have opted for