Following Wednesday’s terrorist attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which claimed the lives of 12 people, several news organizations have chosen not to republish the embattled publication’s controversial Muhammad cartoons, some with better excuses than other.
But the perhaps the most unique reason not to publish the Muhammad cartoons at the center of France’s terror wave comes from NPR, which explained Saturday that it would be “misleading” to publish only a few of the controversial cartoons.
The news group said it would have to publish much more than a handful, meaning it would have to publish the most offensive cartoons, many of which are apparently below NPR’s editorial standards.
“[J]ust because offensive images are part of a story does not mean a news organization must publish or post them with its news reports,” NPR’s standards and practices editor Mark Memmott wrote.
The article, titled “Why You’re Not Seeing Those ‘Charlie Hebdo’ Cartoons,” continued: “In this case, posting just a few of the cover images of the Prophet Muhammad that Charlie Hebdo published could be misleading. The images the magazine has put on its cover, for example, might be less offensive to some viewers than the more graphic cartoons that have appeared inside the magazine. Those include caricatures of a naked prophet.”
Memmott added:
The article ends with a reminder that NPR also decided not to publish a widely circulated video of the execution of one of Wednesday’s victims.
Separately, the New York Times told the Washington Examiner this week that it won’t republish the cartoons, which are likely the reason that Charlie Hebdo was attacked, because the images are simply too obscene.
Another newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, which created a firestorm a decade ago by publishing Muhammad cartoons of its own, stated that it wouldn’t republish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons for the simple reason that it’s terrified of the possible repercussions.
(H/T: @UrbanAchievr)
