The Needle’s Media Correspondent reports:
UK Mainstream Media outlets stood in solidarity, declaring their support for the principle of Freedom of Speech following the murder by Islamic extremists of 12 people in an attack on French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo.
The Daily Mail bravely published a Charlie Hebdo cartoon while explaining that the Islamic extremists had targeted Charlie Hebdo because they had published cartoons that Muslims had found offensive. Just like this one about Jews.
The Independent steadfastly refused to be bowed by this challenge to freedom of speech courageously publishing a Charlie Hebdo cartoon declaring that this cartoon featuring the Pope was similarly offensive to the ones that probably provoked the attacks.
The Sun stressed the need for every journalist to stand as one and not to allow themselves to be dictated to by extremists who want to change our natural freedoms and way of life. And to demonstrate this they fearlessly published a Charlie Hebdo cartoon, noting that some feminists would find this cartoon as offensive as the ones that had upset Islamic extremists..
The Guardian went a step further dauntlessly risking the wrath of Michael Jackson fans by publishing this Charlie Hebdo cartoon demonstrating as they did so that they stood shoulder to shoulder with all who stood against censorship of a free press.
The Daily Telegraph made it absolutely clear that they would not be dictated to and unflinchingly published a Charlie Hebdo cartoon and explained to their readers that this cartoon about gay marriage was drawn by the same people who had been shot for drawing other cartoons.
All in all, this is a very sad day for journalists in the UK and everywhere but a proud one too as they can say that they stood in solidarity against those that would curtail Freedom of Speech and declared with one voice;
Je suis Charlie! (Mais un charlie différents. Pas celui qui publie des caricatures de Mahomet. Comprendre?)
theneedleblog 
Should the peadophile Muhammad be stripped of his title ‘Prophet’ (god bless his cotton socks)
Good piece, Gojam. Funny thing is that I was thinking something similar during Channel 4’s coverage of this horrendous massacre last night when they were quick to qualify their reporting with: “it is against Channel 4 news policy to re-produce any of the alleged islamophobic images from Charlie Hebdo.” Despite all the high-minded sermonizing from the media it’s all wishful thinking as their renewed reticence to feature any of the controversial images from Charlie Hebdo so that we can judge for ourselves and make our own minds up about them actually means that yesterday was another massive victory for religious extremist terrorism.
im glad to see steve bell still knows how to deliver a well place kick in the nuts
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-paris-attack-cartoon-bell
I’ve been thinking about this image thing that’s causing offence. If nobody’s meant to draw an image of him, how do we know if those who have, got close to a true likeness?
What if the artist got it wrong?
If I drew a stick man & said is was him, would that be offensive?
What if I gave him longer sideburns than he actually has or a ‘Yorkshire Ripper’ beard if he’s never sported one?
Let’s suggest we drew a Womble or the cabin boy from Captain Pugwash & said it was he. Would that provoke death threats?
Conversely, I could also draw one of my mates – who could look his double but not know it – would I be on dodgy ground then?
I think we should demand the right to know what he looks like so we can avoid any risk of causing offence. True extremists should now post images everywhere so we can be crystal clear of what we shouldn’t draw.
Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.
sorry gojam i missed the irony there.
gulp
so all you have to do is get yourself murdered and everyone will publish your work.
Wakey, wakey – It was a false flag attack.
Not going to succeed getting any justice if you don’t know what or who you are fighting.
possibly ,possibly genuine but permitted,possibly unseen until done.
i favour the latter on the grounds that there are more folk who “need watching” than “watchers” looking in the right places,the lack of good humint against a “central command” (which does not really exist in practical terms)and the difficulty of identifying individuals or small self contained groups who go from pissed off to radical to active in private. this makes me think it was probably a surprise to the security services .
although the circumstances that lead folk to behave in this way is probably deliberate the details of any “terrorist” action are often quite random.
running ones own black flag operations has serious risks in terms of exposure being far more harmful than any potential gains,engendering situations where truly deniable operations occur makes far more sense.
lessons have been learned since the days of the italian red brigades,the troubles etc etc etc .
it has pushed mr windsor off the front pages and could be seen as a perfect distraction but he will be back center stage as this becomes chip wrapping paper and matters develop in the usa courts etc .
Pingback: UK Media Bravely Stand With Charles Hebdo In Solidarity | Alternative News Network