Charlie Hebdo: The New York Times Not Publishing Caricatures

This major American newspaper has chosen not to disseminate the French weekly’s cartoons, judging them to be “needlessly insulting,” a decision that has provoked much criticism.

They hesitated. All day long. Some published them, only later to remove them. In the end, most major American print media outlets, as well as TV networks, decided not to publish the caricatures from Charlie Hebdo. There are some not-so-rare exceptions: The Wall Street Journal, the Huffington Post, Vox and a few others.

But the big names have made the opposite choice, with difficulty. On Thursday, the public editor of The New York Times let Executive Editor Dean Baquet explain his decision. Baquet admitted that he had spent “about half of [his] day” Wednesday hesitating over what decision to make, before saying “no” to the caricatures on the pretext that they were “pointedly, deliberately or needlessly offensive to members of religious groups.”

A Torrent of Criticism

Consensus? Baquet’s decision was met with a torrent of criticism on the part of readers, and it even troubled the public editor, Margaret Sullivan, who finished her post with: “A review and reconsideration of those standards [of The New York Times concerning the publication of such documents] may be in order in the days ahead.”

What is most remarkable is the quality of the criticism expressed by readers who are roughly five to six times more in favor of condemning the Times’ caution than in supporting it. Some are fierce: “People used to joke that if you wanted to talk about surrender they’d compare you to France. Now they won’t but they might start comparing [you] to The New York Times,” writes “VJR.”

“I am deeply offended that Mr. Baquet would dismiss their [the caricaturists’] work as gratuitously insulting — and I doubt they would have risked their lives to do something they considered gratuitous,” notes another reader.

Accusations of Hypocrisy

But the substantive arguments are the most striking ones. One, the Times is being hypocritical. It censored the cartoons, but put the video of Ahmed Merabet’s murder on its website — cutting off only the moment when he is killed. “What image is truly more offensive, the blood of innocent victims or the cartoons?” asks “Liberty Apples.”

The Times has not always been as modest as it is today. “On July 22, 2009, The New York Times published a picture of the artist Andres Serrano, in 1997, with his urine-immersed crucifix,” recalls a reader from California. It “publishes all kinds of things that I’m sure it does not agree with or condone,” adds “TFree Press.” “Like statements from racists or threats relating to religious extremism of any stripe, or quotes from the manifesto of the Unabomber.” “I recall The Times reprinting wildly anti-Semitic cartoons from Iran in the past few years,” says another.

Great Numbers vs. Fear

In addition, the scope of the tragedy must influence the decision whether to publish these cartoons. “Charlie Hebdo published the cartoons because, not despite, the fact that they are provocative,” says “Max Davies.” “You must publish them because your colleagues were murdered for exercising their right to do so, not because you like or approve of them.”

“It sounds reasonable to say that the NYT won’t publish the cartoons simply because its standards don’t allow needless belittling of any religion. But at the moment, there is a huge need to stand up to these murderers of people and free speech. Big difference here,” insists “Dawit Cherie.”

And great numbers alone, writes “ellen,” can overcome fear: “There should be an organized effort, perhaps starting with the NY Times, to have every newspaper in America publish the cartoons. […] This is a similar situation to ‘The Interview.’ The terrorist strategy should backfire and present the world with the[se] images in huge numbers.”

Gratuitous Insults?

The term used by Baquet, “gratuitous insults,” is hard for many readers to swallow. “Their targets were not religions but stupidity and violence (“les cons et les salauds” as Charb put it),” writes “Benjamin.” “Josh Hill” went to other sites to see the caricatures in question, after reading the Times’ post, and returned to the Times’ site, completely astonished: “The cartoons were in fact surprisingly mild and amusing.”

Not all hope is lost. “Randall” implores the newspaper: “Please reconsider and publish the cartoons. The cartoons are the story.” It is unlikely, but it is clear that the Times’ self-censorship has not finished making waves, both outside of and inside of the newspaper.