Tag Archives: Media

The myth of free speech in the Western world

The attacks on Charlie Hebdo cartoonists this week were atrocious and unfair. There is never any justification for the cruel massacre of 17 people and the terrorizing of a whole city for three days. But I am not Charlie and I feel very uncomfortable with the global endorsement of that hashtag. Although it has been pointed out to me that the hashtag is just a show of solidarity for the victims, I am extremely uncomfortable in supporting free speech that makes fun of Boko Haram sex slaves – sexually abused children – to make a (racist) point about welfare.

In a breath of fresh air, the leaking of internal Al Jazeera emails to The National Review revealed that they have privately positioned themselves against the global support of Charlie Hebdo. One of the quotes that most stood out for me was the following by journalist Omar Al Saleh: “Journalism is not a crime [but] insultism is not journalism. And not doing journalism properly is a crime.”

In the fast-paced world of online journalism and Twitter, a condemnation of the attacks and an unquestionable support for free speech was demanded left and right. It has become a matter of “If you’re against Charlie you’re pro terrorism/against free speech,” whereas the question here should really be: “Free speech is great, how do we use it responsibly?”

Even if free speech is an unquestionable right the Western world prides itself in, the right to publish anything you want doesn’t excuse the use of irresponsible, racist, polarizing cartoons. You are free to make fun of Boko Haram sexual slaves but the question is – should you? (Hint: No.) David Brooks of the New York Times puts it well:

“(…) Whatever you might have put on your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.

“We might have started out that way. When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.

“But after a while that seems puerile. Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others. (…) Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths. We do try to open conversations with listening rather than insult.” – David Brooks, I Am Not Charlie, The New York Times

The thing about freedom of speech is that it does not exist in a vacuum where it has no impact, especially if you are a journalist exercising your right in a major publication. Once your words appear in a magazine or newspaper, those words matter and they will influence the people who read them. You may tell yourself that people will decide for themselves to be racist and that you had nothing to do with it – but if you publish a racist sentiment you are validating thousands of racists who already feel that way and you might influence people who don’t know much about the subject.

Some people have claimed that Charlie Hebdo’s racist cartoons have spurred on debate about Islam. And here, I ask: who was part of this debate? Was Islam presented accurately by white cartoonists who probably don`t have any Muslim friends? Through the medium of the depiction of the prophet with a star on his ass, was Islam represented fairly or was it vilified? What use is a debate where only one side is heard – the side of the voyeurs?

Free speech is not about petulantly publishing offensive content that adds nothing to difficult conversations we should be having about religion, race and oppression. And neither is it “brave,” like many have claimed – it is actually pretty cowardly to incite Islamophobia in a country where Muslims are increasingly discriminated against. It is ignorant and reeks of white privilege.

Religions are not beyond reproach but the Charlie cartoons were very racialized and polarizing – they othered a group of people. Extremism can and should be questioned but not to the expense of generalizing an entire group.

The Myth of Free Speech

Much has been said about how free speech is under attack in the Western World because of this attack. Frankly, this is extremely hypocritical when, as a woman online, I see the silencing of people of colour and women every single day.

It can be through extreme harassment in orchestrated attacks or just a woman being pushed out of a forum because of gendered slurs aimed at her. It can be through the prominence of racist cartoons over the voices of real Muslims where Islam is concerned: and the erasure of these voices and the lack of positive representation of Muslim characters in the media can result in violent Islamophobia and othering. I have heard of female journalists being told their content was “too women centred” or too “politically correct” for the broader media. As the brilliant Sunny Hundal puts it:

“(…)Let’s also stand up for free speech when Muslims are being threatened. Some of the voices I hear piping up about free speech only do so when Muslims are the perpetrators not victims.

“That isn’t just inconsistent, it also makes me think you don’t really care for the principles at stake. And that also makes it much harder for all of us to convince Muslims about why they should embrace more free speech and the right to insult their religion.” – Sunny Hundal, Why do liberals find it so hard to persuade Muslims about free speech?, Liberal Conspiracy

It must be pointed out that in France, the use of the hijab is forbidden. In 2012 several Muslim institutions sued Charlie Hebdo for their racist content but the case was dismissed. To me, this is a clear double standard: racist cartoons inciting hate? Okay. Embracing Islam as a religion publicly? Not okay. This is only one instance in which free speech is exposed as a myth, or rather a selective right: it is only available to the powerful majority.

We are kidding ourselves if we idealize journalism as some kind of noble profession when a lot of the content is produced for profit. Of course, the fact that it is for profit does not mean it cannot be used for good and for the public interest but your commitment to free speech is extremely polarized if you think everyone has the same footing when joining in the conversation.

Journalists, I am sceptical about your commitment to free speech if you are not seeking diverse voices to include in your work. Editors, I am sceptical about your commitment to free speech if you are not striving for a more diverse pool of writers. I am sceptical about the commitment of most of the press when their opinion sections look like this:

The Times, June 2014.
The Times, June 2014.
The Times, January 2015
The Times, January 2015
Question Time panel after the attacks in Paris.

Go ahead and say “But I am pro-diversity!” but this is not about you or your opinions. This is about systemic violence that silences women and people of colour across the Western world and the fact that people aren’t outraged about that. I am not Charlie Hebdo because I believe a diverse set of voices – not polarizing racist cartoons – will set us free.

UPDATE: Adding this helpful read about the two-layered type of humor Charlie Hebdo is all about – as well as an explanation of how it is also exploitative and racist.

My thoughts are with the friends and family of the victims of the massacre and the Muslims who will undoubtedly suffer Islamophobia as a result of these attacks.

Why pop culture matters

Image

When Miley Cyrus twerked on the stage of the VMAs the press got right on the subject and many people complained about the excessive coverage. People who were unhappy about it said that there are more important things (possibly referring to Syria) to be reported and that they expected more from whatever publication mentioned the performance. There was a general consensus that pop culture news is dumb and useless.

But this view is completely narrow-minded and mostly expressed by those who are privileged enough not to be directly affected by what Miley’s performance and song means…

Read the rest here.

Did you like this post? Like my page on Facebook or follow me on Twitter for more!

When the people changed the angle

17.06.13-Downtow-Rio-De-Janeiro-flag_2

One of the most substantial problems with the media-audience relationship is representation. Though journalism is supposed to be neutral, it has always been blatant that political bias is a reality that cannot be avoided. Though a piece of writing or a news reel might be balanced, by having both sides of the argument there is always an angle to present the information with. Editing, choosing quotes, structuring the piece, all of this depends on the opinion of the writer or the media outlet.

This has never been a secret. And the problem with it is that many times the work of journalists can fail to represent their audience’s interests because they are too out of touch. People might complain of the Daily Mail but it is incredibly unlikely that they will change their sexist, misogynistic, shaming agenda.

But in the last three weeks Brazilian protesters all over their country forced the media to change their angle on the movement completely. In the beginning of the protests newspapers were using words that implied all the protesters were being violent. One perfect example of this was the front page of O Globo in the first week of unrest that splayed the Turkish protests and the Brazilian manifestations. The headline referring to the Turkish unrest called the Turkish people ‘activists’. The headline pertaining to the Brazilian protests used the word ‘vandals’. Placed side by side it showed the clear right-wing intentions of the newspaper to make the protests into a violent, senseless affair.

Soon enough citizen reporters started posting photos of the peaceful movement on social media, saying that O Globo and Rede Globo weren’t reporting the protests correctly, and that they had been for the most part completely peaceful.

Those involved in the movement, be it online or on the streets, quickly started sharing personal accounts of the events, conspiracy theories and instructions on how to protest (including how to recuperate from inhaling tear gas). It became clear that no one was happy about how they were being represented and this  issue started coming to the streets with everything else people were angry about. It wasn’t only that they were being misrepresented but Globo has been monopolizing information for the last two decades. It is the most watched free-view channel in the country, and the other options are scarce.

After a week or so of complaints the turning point came when a female reporter was forced to leave a protest after being antagonized furiously by protesters chanting at the top of their voices against Rede Globo. They sang “The people aren’t stupid, down with Rede Globo” and “The truth is harsh, Globo supported the dictatorship”. The reporter was driven away afraid they would hurt her. The same happened to a male reporter a few days later.

Soon Rede Globo reporters were forced to start using microphones without the network’s logo and to report from the roof of buildings looking over the protests as opposed to the ground.

That wasn’t the only thing that changed though. While broadcasting the violent action live from a helicopter, journalists continually said the movement was mostly peaceful and that the violent actions were completely isolated. The agenda, the angle, the opinions changed just like that. And even though people are still complaining online and would probably be hostile to any Globo reporter they recognize, the media in general has changed their tone. They are no longer disapproving or generalizing the movement.

It is not only an interesting phenomenon for any media geek, but also a point that should be taken by all journalists. Listening to your audience is and will always be important.

Photo courtesy of Michel de Souza.