19 January 2015

The readers’ editor on… the Guardian’s values and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of Muhammad

I am aware that many Muslims, some of them friends and colleagues, will have been offended by the Guardian’s use of that image, and I am sorry for that. However, I believe the countervailing argument is that on this occasion the image of the cover had an important and legitimate news value.

Showing the magazine’s response in the wake of the deaths was an important part of telling the story, and the Guardian did so in a measured, restrained fashion. It has to feel free to tell it in its own way. [1050 comments]

[TOP RATED COMMENT 710 votes] "I am aware that many Muslims, some of them friends and colleagues, will have been offended by the Guardian’s use of that image, and I am sorry for that."

You shouldn't be.

[SECOND 510] "There were also articles that sought to separate the actions of terrorists from the deep offence felt by many Muslims at the depiction of images of Muhammad."

But none did it successfully. The central point is, being 'offended' when seeing a cartoon is profoundly absurd – it's condescending to reform-minded Muslims as well as the secular majority to say 'well WE all understand that this is just a cartoon, but you can't expect everyone to understand'. Why not?

Charlie Hebdo sought to highlight this absurdity and paid the price for it. The Guardian, by paying lip service to these preposterous 'sensitivities', just continues this strange status quo where the absurd is to be 'respected'

[THIRD 431] "The Guardian used a thumbnail picture of the cover with a warning that some readers might find the image offensive. There were also technical issues to overcome to ensure that the image stayed as a thumbnail across all platforms."

Who needs satire when reality is this absurd?

[FOURTH 358] I think, overall, the Guardian struck the wrong balance, and that nearly everyone will be in agreement that by refusing to do more than sneak a tiny image of the commemorative Charlie Hebdo cover into one article, you have bowed to the demands of terrorists.

However, that's small potatoes when compared to the hundreds (probably literally) of subsequent articles drumming home the message that Islam is the real victim. I don't think I have ever seen as many Guardian readers so diametrically opposed to the paper's editorial policy, and I have to say that I'm not surprised, because if you genuinely believe that Islam is the victim in all of this then you're hopelessly out of touch not only with the prevailing public mood, but also with the very values the Guardian is supposed to promote.

The UK's leading liberal voice, bending over backwards to accommodate the sensitivities of a religion (the Guardian - bending over backwards for a religion!) which hates gays, hates Jews, subjugates women and places arbitrary limits on free expression - I never thought I'd see the day.

[FIFTH 344] "He said he certainly didn’t agree that it was necessary to show solidarity by republishing the offensive cartoons."

So Rusbridger has now classified them as "offensive?" Mmmmmm.

[SIXTH 307] Admit it- you are afraid (I would be too). Stop pussyfooting around with ridiculous excuses.

[SEVENTH 293] Since The Guardian has acquiesced to the demands re images of the prophet, stay tuned for further demands ongoing.

[EIGHTH 292] Had Charlie Hebdo been published in the UK the Guardian would have led the charge in denouncing it as racist.

It's doubtful there is a mainstream cultural platform in the English speaking world, which features so many calls for so many diverse things to be banned, enforced or curtailed, as does the Guardian. Due to its establishment influence far too much of this subsequently makes its way into legislation.

This, and indeed the entire history of the left, renders all the trumpeting about free expression somewhat risible.

[NINTH 269] You got the call wrong, the hundreds if not thousands of comments on CIF backed the call to publish the cartoons, after all they are only cartoons. The cartoons were the excuse for the act of terrorism and so were highly newsworthy. The readers should have been allowed to see the cartoons to try and understand the mindset of the perpetrators of the killings.

We should be challenging the Muslim community as to why they find images of Mohammed so offensive, or why they find any criticism of the implementation of their religion out of bounds.

[TENTH 254] On the face of it, a reasonable piece. However, what it does not do is address the particularly pervasive notion that while it is okay to insult and belittle through cartoons and literature innumerable objects of derision (deserved or otherwise), the sensitivities of muslims are somehow more deserving of respect than the sensitivities of any other group.

I have no issue with muslims being deeply offended by images of their prophet but that does not give them special rights - there are many people who are deeply offended by all sorts of things and they have no special rights either. It is ironic that by treating muslims a special interest group of particular sanctity the Graun indirectly fuels the the likes of UKIP who gain leverage by claiming that ordinary white working class people are being oppressed and marginalised by a lefty, eltiist establishment.

[ELEVENTH 250] There was nothing offensive about that picture whatsoever.

A supposedly free press should not make such an abject, grovelling apology to religious fanatics for simply reporting the news.

[TWELTH 228] So basically, the Guardian wants to surf on the back of Charlie Hebdo's fight for freedom of speech but doesn't actually want to put its head above the parapet and invite jihadis with AK's into their offices? [Guardian Cif] Read more