The New York Times Pleases the Enemies of Freedom
In The New York Times, probably the most respected and arguably still the world's best newspaper, a recent editorial dealt with the attacks on “Charlie Hebdo.” In this part of the paper with its elevated layout, it spoke for the entire newspaper in a piece entitled “Charlie Hebdo and Freedom of Expression” and asked the question how far freedom of expression was allowed to go and whether there should be limits to what radical secularists as well as religious fundamentalists are allowed to say.
After that, the reasoning becomes a little fancifully indecisive but in no way startling. Until the decisive statement that comes quite near the end: “Tastes, standards and situations change, and in the end it is best for editors and societies at large to judge what is fit — or safe — to print.” [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charlie-hebdo-and-free-expression.html?_r=0]
If read more than once, the meaning becomes clear: It's an official declaration of bankruptcy, freedom of expression's unconditional surrender to terrorist violence. What was published in the New York Times international edition was tantamount to saying security is more important than freedom. Benjamin Franklin already addressed that notion when he said, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin]
Several days ago, I had repeatedly expressed my concern that an attack on an entire media entity in the middle of the Western world could result in long-term behavior change, a new apprehension on the part of many media about their relationship with fundamentalists that would be based on the notion that they didn't want to provoke anyone. And that would be the ultimate victory for terrorism.
I thought about what would happen over the coming few months, the period after the dust had settled on the first wave of solidarity. I thought about those small, financially struggling and editorially shaky regional newspapers and blogs. That this could happen to, of all things, the most powerful and fearless newspaper in the world; the paper that was striving more and more to become one of the leading digital formats — I would never even have dreamed it. And, by the way, the effect of that mindset was already apparent before the editorial had ever seen print: The reason for the terror in Paris – the Charlie Hebdo cartoons – were never published in the New York Times for safety's sake.
Citizens Are More Courageous Than Their Own Media
It's all the more bitter because the collective citizens on this earth have reacted so much more intelligently, modernly, clearly and courageously than many had thought they would: Maximum solidarity with the victims, no sympathy for the perpetrators, clearly committed to freedom in general and to freedom of expression in particular — all without resorting to the blame game, Islamophobia or racism.
That's how modern Western society ideally thinks of itself. The sovereign citizen is more responsible than their keeper, many politicians and most journalists ever thought possible. And, above all, citizens are clearly braver than their media.
For over 100 years, The New York Times has proudly trumpeted its motto, “All the news that's fit to print" in its masthead. It was a courageous battle cry of independence and editorial courage. After this editorial, it may have to be changed to “All the news that's safe to print.”
The enemies of freedom should be overjoyed.
After that, the reasoning becomes a little fancifully indecisive but in no way startling. Until the decisive statement that comes quite near the end: “Tastes, standards and situations change, and in the end it is best for editors and societies at large to judge what is fit — or safe — to print.” [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charlie-hebdo-and-free-expression.html?_r=0]
If read more than once, the meaning becomes clear: It's an official declaration of bankruptcy, freedom of expression's unconditional surrender to terrorist violence. What was published in the New York Times international edition was tantamount to saying security is more important than freedom. Benjamin Franklin already addressed that notion when he said, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin]
Several days ago, I had repeatedly expressed my concern that an attack on an entire media entity in the middle of the Western world could result in long-term behavior change, a new apprehension on the part of many media about their relationship with fundamentalists that would be based on the notion that they didn't want to provoke anyone. And that would be the ultimate victory for terrorism.
I thought about what would happen over the coming few months, the period after the dust had settled on the first wave of solidarity. I thought about those small, financially struggling and editorially shaky regional newspapers and blogs. That this could happen to, of all things, the most powerful and fearless newspaper in the world; the paper that was striving more and more to become one of the leading digital formats — I would never even have dreamed it. And, by the way, the effect of that mindset was already apparent before the editorial had ever seen print: The reason for the terror in Paris – the Charlie Hebdo cartoons – were never published in the New York Times for safety's sake.
Citizens Are More Courageous Than Their Own Media
It's all the more bitter because the collective citizens on this earth have reacted so much more intelligently, modernly, clearly and courageously than many had thought they would: Maximum solidarity with the victims, no sympathy for the perpetrators, clearly committed to freedom in general and to freedom of expression in particular — all without resorting to the blame game, Islamophobia or racism.
That's how modern Western society ideally thinks of itself. The sovereign citizen is more responsible than their keeper, many politicians and most journalists ever thought possible. And, above all, citizens are clearly braver than their media.
For over 100 years, The New York Times has proudly trumpeted its motto, “All the news that's fit to print" in its masthead. It was a courageous battle cry of independence and editorial courage. After this editorial, it may have to be changed to “All the news that's safe to print.”
The enemies of freedom should be overjoyed.