This whole thing rubs me the wrong way. I find it strange how Arabs and muslims are free to be mocked and have to accept racism as satire. For example this racial stereotyping.(
s no different to me than your typical racist black man stereotypical portrayal.
And I just recently read that some guy making antisemetic jokes was fired by charlie hebdo himself http://www.worldbulletin.net/world/152585/charlie-hebdo-fired-cartoonist-for-anti-semitism-in-2009
The world is such a fucking mess right now. I just cant take anything at face value anymore. With all the stuff thats being held back in the mainstream media, stuff some of you likely dont even know that are happening right now, i cant take anything seriously. With such evil in the world, with such evil ruling everywhere, where is it all coming from? Why is it ok for israel to bomb a whole community and take away some land everyday, but some antisemetic satire gets 1 fired, palestine standing up to become part of UN Gets voted down by US. What a disgusting unfair world.
That's actually an interesting angle. Let me first start by saying that I agree with you on your comments about Israel and Palestine and the U.S.'s treatment of the conflict (the U.S. has historically tried to maintain Israel as an ally.)
I'm interested in how you conceive the caricatures to be racist, genuinely, and speaking as someone with no religious affiliation. As it stands, among certain comics/publications evangelical Christians and positions associated with them are already heavily mocked (This Modern World immediately comes to mind.) I do think that among Western societies (I'm more confident at least in saying this about America) it's less of a point of contention amongst the general public to mock Muslims since the dominant religions include Christianity, maybe Judaism (
but they get shit too) and beside that there are atheists and pagan groups. There are other reasons ofc; 9/11, instability/poor economic circumstances in parts of the region (I knew a person once who said the Middle East should be nuked because it's a mess), immigration concerns (more a Europe thing, apparently.)
While I agree somewhat on your comments on The Media, I chalk it mostly to two things - the commercialization of media (and with this, the desire to write to capture a particular audience) and the fact that it is in the geopolitical interests/of relevant cultural interest to the United States to maintain an ally in Israel's region. Sometimes the higher up you go, the more likely you are to assimilate yourself into what you perceive to be a "group" by adopting their traits - writing styles, beliefs. Personally, I think CNN anchors like Don Lemon and Wolf Blitzer represent very tepid, gray, middle-of-the-road reporting.
That being said, it's worth noting the stuff on USAToday that often attracts most interest/comments include celebrities, sports, items that fuel skepticism (vaccines, for example), hot button political issues (shootings, questioning a politician's character, Ebola in the US). Because a large audience is perceived as being not as present for an under-the-surface article, the fact that things "gotta get clicks/pageviews" for a commercial publication is more problematic - because the concept of economics is influencing what gets written. It's also why longform articles are often not as popular (even Polygon, make of them what you will, have explicitly announced they'll be doing less of them after some of their staff left recently) - shit's too long for some people. I think that, in part, a consequence commercialization of the media is the perceived need to make them more political institutions - besides just basic group/identity dynamics.
I do think it sucks that some of the shit I'm interested in (global warming for example) doesn't get much traction in mainstream publication. Not even the travel stories! I think it's cool to look at other places.
One thing I must add about USAToday is that there are too many freaking ads and it makes for a crappy viewing experience. I do view it though because some of the content is very interesting, and I wonder about the perspective of a mainstream publication.
But they are. People have to realize this very basic rule: if someone gets pissed enough they will wreck your shit even if they "can't".
It is my right to walk around with gold chains on my neck, but if I do so for long enough I WILL get robbed.
Bad things and people exist, even if people pretend they don't. Having rights doesn't shield you from getting killed by someone who doesn't give a fuck.
btw, Christ abolished the Israeli law in the Old Testament, so I can eat shellfish all I want! Thank you Jesus
Yeah that's actually really interesting. The people who killed the French cartoonists here didn't care about our concepts of free speech and the moral justifications or things of the sort behind it. If the problem of "how can we get people to care about things more or not fit into this definition of being a douchebag" were that easily solved we wouldn't deal with nearly as much crap. But it's 2015 and we're not there obv