10 janvier 2015

Cachez ces caricatures offensantes!

Dans cet article, Sean Davis critique sévèrement la décision de plusieurs médias américains de censurer ou de ne pas montrer les caricatures de Charlie Hebdo. Comme quoi la droite dit beaucoup de conneries, mais de temps en temps, ils sont dans le mille:

(...) Peaceful people who are offended must deal with offense, but violent sociopaths who are thrown into murderous rages by cartoons? Their feelings must be respected. Welcome to 2015, where polite requests for decency are ignored, and childish temper tantrums are exalted as the means by which developmentally stunted neanderthals get whatever they want. Which brings us to CNN.

(...) Where to begin? For starters, note that the network is apparently afraid of even using the word Muhammad. Instead, the Islamic religious figure is referred to by CNN merely as “the Prophet.” Not a prophet. And not even the prophet. “The Prophet,” with a capital P.

If we are to take CNN’s memo at its word, no other prophets existed before or after Muhammad. He is literally the only one. Forget Moses. Forget Abraham. Forget that both are major prophets for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Nope. Muhammad is the only one (even if that statement itself is heretical to the ideology they’re desperately trying not to offend) and he will be faux-respected by fearful news executives, even if that faux respect results in the blatant disrespect of other religions that outright reject Muhammad’s alleged teachings. Your offense is only worthy of note if comes packaged with a death threat.

I look forward to CNN referring to Jesus Christ as “the Messiah” from now on. I look forward to CNN referring to God as “G-d” out of respect for Jews who believe it is sinful to utter His name.

(...) CNN, a television network that exists to broadcast images to the world, instructed its employees to avoid the use of pictures and instead use words to describe the cartoon images. Did I mention that CNN is a TV station? And that the whole point of TV is to display images? Because it is. That’s why TV exists. To display images. Unless you’re CNN. And how did CNN justify its ban on pictures? It said it was necessary because “[verbal descriptions] are key to understanding the nature of the attack on the magazine and the tension between free expression and respect for religion.”

A TV executive with with an allegedly functioning brain actually wrote that the key — not a key, but the key — to understanding a murderous attack over cartoon images is to…only use spoken words to describe the images, rather than, oh, I don’t know, show the actual images.

But at least CNN gave its staff the freedom to publish cartoons protesting the killings in Paris, though. At least CNN had the decency to show images protesting the barbaric attacks in Paris. Right? Right??

"It’s also OK to show most of the protest cartoons making the rounds online, though care should be taken to avoid examples that include within them detailed depictions of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons."

Oh. Okay, then. We wouldn’t want a news organization to air detailed depictions of the raison d’etre for France’s deadliest terrorist attack in two decades. And we certainly can’t have a news organization faithfully reporting on criticism of the attackers or their ideology. That would just be too much.

(...) Maybe if we just call him “The Prophet” and tut-tut his detractors under our breath, his zealous followers will leave us alone and instead attack those fools who called him “a prophet,” or — gasp — used his actual name, or — even worse — drew a picture of him. Maybe they will look upon us with favor and spare us as a way of repaying our subservience to their ideology. Maybe our deliberate corruption of language in service of a violent strain of religion will signal that we mean them no harm. Maybe our weakness will be seen as strength. Maybe our lack of spine will be seen as courage. Maybe up will be down, hot will be cold, and slavery will be freedom.



Aucun commentaire: