[ad_1]
Swiss television pixels the Muhammad cartoons from “Charlie Hebdo” in the main issue of “Tagesschau.” Kneel to potential negative reactions? The SRF says no.
The cover of the satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo” from Wednesday (September 2).
“Tout ça pour ça”: under this title, the French satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo” reprinted the controversial cartoons of Muhammad on its front page on Wednesday. Just the day a court case is supposed to deal with the Islamist terrorist attack on the editors of the French satirical magazine in January 2015 for the first time.
Nothing more to add. pic.twitter.com/uxeDz2Mp7K
– Charlie Hebdo (@Charlie_Hebdo_) September 3, 2020
The fact that the magazine was showing the cartoons again naturally caused a media stir. “‘Charlie Hebdo’ does not allow his mouth or pen to be forbidden and he continues to provoke with courage,” read the main edition of “Tagesschau” on Swiss television. As a viewer, one should have been surprised by Wednesday night’s contribution: the “Tagesschau” only showed the Muhammad cartoons in pixels. ARD’s “Tagesschau” – SRF’s German counterpart – showed the unpainted cartoons.
All just a misunderstanding
Has Swiss television given in for fear of negative reactions? At the SRF media office, wave your hand. The fact that the cartoon was pixelated in the publication is based on a misunderstanding in the communication between the head of the service (CvD) and the producer of the “Tagesschau”, says media spokesman Stefan Wyss on request. The CVD had recalled that SRF did not show any images of terrorists. In the hustle and bustle, this was “woefully misunderstood” by the producer and applied to the cartoon. Wyss emphasizes: “SRF has shown the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ cartoons in previous reports and has not developed any new rules.”
Ethical media decision
Even if the pixelation in the post had been done consciously, for media scientist Marlis Prinzing, such a decision would have nothing to do with censorship. “I definitely wouldn’t talk about it here.” The term censorship describes when, for example, a government deliberately withholds important information from the public, Prinzing said. This is not the case here. Prinzing is a professor in the Department of Media and Communication Studies at the University of Freiburg i. OR. as well as professor of journalism at the Macromedia University of Cologne. In his view, the decision as to whether such a cartoon should be displayed pixelated or non-pixelated would be purely media ethical in nature and related to the basic structure of how editorial offices would make such decisions. The question is what are the consequences of representing such a cartoon. “Do you risk having negative reactions or do you prefer to do without them?” Says the teacher.
She emphasizes: “There is no right or wrong in this case.” “Personally, I would have shown the cartoon untouched,” Prinzing said, “and consciously started a discussion about the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ decision and what the satire can do.”
According to Prinzing, the fact that the Swiss media in general approaches these issues differently than those in Germany is not the case. The media systems of the two countries are too similar for that. There are also no notable differences in the press code. If so, then there are differences between individual language regions. “In media systems research, it is known that the media systems in Switzerland are similar to those in the neighboring country depending on the language region.”
The debate is not new
As early as 2015, shortly after the attacks in Paris, there was a debate over whether Mohammed’s cartoons should be shown in the media. Many European media showed the controversial cartoons of the time. At the same time, it was noted that practically no Anglo-Saxon media showed the cartoons, such as the “New York Times”. “This kind of humor is an unnecessary insult,” editor-in-chief Dean Baquet justified the decision at the time. The humor does not meet the standards of the “New York Times”. A large part of the readers were people who were offended by the satire on the prophet Muhammad, Baquet said. “This reader I care about is not a supporter of IS, he lives in Brooklyn, has a family and is devoted.”
The television station CNN also pixelates the cartoons in its live reports. In an internal circular of the station, which the magazine “Politico” made public at that time, it was said: “Avoid close-ups that show the cartoon.” The reason given by CNN’s senior editorial director Richard Griffiths was that they did not show the images because many Muslims might see it as “detrimental to honor.”
American journalism professor Jeff Jarvis criticized these decisions in a blog post: it was an embarrassment to America as the “land of free speech.” “I don’t believe you, you don’t want to hurt anyone with that,” he wrote. Readers would find images differently everywhere if they wanted to, and as a medium, you shouldn’t underestimate your audience. In fact, it is capable of forming its own image. Publishing the cartoons is also part of the journalistic mission.
[ad_2]
