Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Will American News Organizations Reprint the Most Newsworthy Cartoon of the Year?

The New York Times had 9 years to come up with a better justification for not running images of Mohammed


Nope, no male genitalia there! |||

It's a fortunate thing that the new Charlie Hebdo cover image became known today at 4:30 p.m. ET, because that means the same deep-pocketed, overlawyered, American news organizations that have so spectacularly avoided reprinting allegedly "offensive" CH covers thus far will have plenty of time to wrestle with their starkest yes-or-no choice yet: Are you really going to opt out of showing the most newsworthy cover image of the year, one that carries a legitimately sweet (if sardonic) message, just because it portrays (a grieving and empathetic) Mohammed?

Unsurprisingly, The New York Times is out of the gate with a resounding "yes." The Paper of Record is in the awkward position of having a (very good) article up titled "Charlie Hebdo's New Issue Has Muhammad on the Cover," absent a certain, shall we say, illustrative element. In contrast, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and the L.A. Times have shared with their readers (at least online) what the hullaballoo is about.

That last publication in particular is significant to me, since that's where the current editor of The New York Times, Dean Baquet, was the man in charge during the 2006 Danish cartoon cartoon controversy. I worked there at the same time, for the Opinion section—which was not under Baquet's domain—where I lost a strenuous argument about the necessity of reprinting one of the contested images, a story I recount at some length here. Perhaps the greatest insult I could give to Baquet (who I met once or twice; perfectly nice guy) is to say that it never really occurred to me that he would screw up the courage to print a simple, newsworthy cartoon. As then-Times media columnist Tim Rutten recounted at the time, in a column so withering he wouldn't even utter Baquet's name,

I suggested that the cartoons run inside the Calendar section with a notice in this space concerning their location. That way, those who wanted to see them could, while those who might be offended simply could avoid that page.

I fully expected the proposal to be rejected, and it was—quickly and in writing, though the note also expressed the hope that the column would be as forceful and candid as possible.

File away that retreat-but-publicly-agonize-over-it move for later. For now, reflect that Rutten's column, which attracted a fair amount of national attention at the time, was headlined "Let's be honest about cartoons," and leveled the self-damning accusation that newspapers were dodging the issue out of fear, without having the basic sense of transparency or decency to admit it to their readers: 

Among those who decline to show the caricatures, only one, the Boston Phoenix, has been forthright enough to admit that its editors made the decision "out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do. This is, frankly, our primary reason for not publishing any of the images in question. Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy."

There is something wonderfully clarifying about honesty.

After pointing out that all newspapers have double standards when it comes to "offending" various groups, Rutten concluded: "those of us who inhabit this real world will continue to believe that the American news media's current exercise in mass self-censorship has nothing to do with either sensitivity or restraint and everything to do with timidity and expediency."

I quote Rutten at length to underline that Dean Baquet has had nine years to come up with a better justification. Instead, he has spent the past week beclowning himself again and again. I am not being unfair.

Charmed, I'm sure. |||

On January 8, New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan wrote an agonized piece titled "A Close Call for Publication of Charlie Hebdo Cartoons." In it, Baquet played Hamlet:

Baquet told me that he started out the day Wednesday convinced that The Times should publish the images, both because of their newsworthiness and out of a sense of solidarity with the slain journalists and the right of free expression.

He said he had spent "about half of my day" on the question, seeking out the views of senior editors and reaching out to reporters and editors in some of The Times's international bureaus. They told him they would not feel endangered if The Times reproduced the images, he told me, but he remained concerned about staff safety.

"I sought out a lot of views, and I changed my mind twice," he said. "It had to be my decision alone."

Oh how will our hero decide???

Ultimately, he decided against it, he said, because he had to consider foremost the sensibilities of Times readers, especially its Muslim readers. To many of them, he said, depictions of the prophet Muhammad are sacrilegious? those that are meant to mock even more so. "We have a standard that is long held and that serves us well: that there is a line between gratuitous insult and satire. Most of these are gratuitous insult."

"At what point does news value override our standards?" Mr. Baquet asked. "You would have to show the most incendiary images" from the newspaper? and that was something he deemed unacceptable.

I asked Mr. Baquet about a different approach — something much more moderate, along the lines of what the [Washington] Post's Op­Ed page did in print. "Something like that is probably so compromised as to become meaningless," he responded, though he was speaking generally, not of The Post's decision.

The Times undoubtedly made a careful and conscientious decision in keeping with its standards.

As Bill Maher said, they had balls bigger than Depardieu. |||

Undoubtedly. Let's recap: To be representative of the art, you had to print the most "incendiary" (note choice of words) stuff—as opposed to, say, this wholly appropriate post-firebombing cartoon of a male Hebdo staffer kissing a male Muslim. Since the most shocking images were indeed shocking (especially to American eyeballs), then they'd be too gratuitously offensive, and that violates the paper's long-held standard.

It took about a half-hour for Baquet's story to fall apart. Here's Politico's Dylan Byers:

Yet in August 2010, the Times published this item about a Holocaust-denying Iranian cartoonist with an image of a cartoon that featured, in the Times' words, "anti-Jewish caricatures." Four years earlier, in 2006, the Times published this article about an Iranian exhibition of "anti-Jewish art," which featured a photograph of three anti-Semitic cartoons, one of which included a swastika.

Out: long-held standard. In: "Baquet noted that he wasn't executive editor when the two pieces were published, and added, 'I obviously don't feel an obligation to follow anyone else's edict.'" The NYT editor also added this new wrinkle:

But let's not forget the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet. I don't give a damn about the head of ISIS but I do care about that family and it is arrogant to ignore them.

By this time the snickers were spilling over from Twitter all the way into respectable newsprint. Gawker declared flatly that Baquet's "dictum is confusing because it's false: On many occasions the paper of record has printed images that are "'designed to gratuitously offend.'" Editorial Page Editor Vincent Carroll of the Denver Post, which was among the few dailies in the country reprinting Charlie Hebdo just after the attack, noted that "Tellingly, The Times has had no qualms in the past about publishing imagery gratuitously insulting to other faiths." At The Federalist, Mollie Hemingway was as shrill as Tim Rutten: "Nobody believes this. Absolutely nobody on earth believes that American journalists operate with deference toward Baptists, Mormons or Catholics, much less an abundance of deference to same."

I had mentioned above that Dean Baquet has been "beclowning himself again and again" during this controvery, which certainly sounds uncharitable. But consider that after two days of his public agony and easily disprovable "standards," Baquet then went on Facebook to throw a shit-fit about a critical post from old L.A. lefty journo/professor Marc Cooper. I'm totally not making that up.

After Cooper had written, "Exactly how many people have to be shot in cold blood before your paper rules that you can show us what provoked the killers?…What absolute cowardice. These MSM managers act is if they are running insurance companies, not news organizations," Baquet shot back:

Dear Marc, appreciate the self righteous second guessing without even considering there might be another point of view. Hope your students are more open minded. Asshole

He then kept digging:

Of course there is a second view. And I welcome it. But your note was thoughtless and arrogant. It didn't invite argument. It invites so what you got. And no insurance didn't even enter the discussion.

I welcome vigorous debate. Not righteous cheap shots […]

Understand you disagree. But there was a thoughtful discussion to be had. Next time I promise we will have it. But I briistle at arguments like those of fauchier who think it was a question of courage. It was not.

Meanwhile, the paper's Opinion section is running a "Room for Debate" back-and-forth about Charlie Hebdo, asking the important questions, "Can writers and artists sometimes be too provocative and outrageous? Should they hold themselves back?" I think we know Dean Baquet's answers to that.

To quote Tim Rutten, a columnist with whom I have disagreed plenty over the years, "Let's be honest about cartoons." News organizations who won't show Charlie Hebdo's latest cover are either afraid of being bombed, afraid of jeopardizing their foreign assets, or they are willfully submitting to the heckler's veto and giving preference to those who complain loudest. There is, in my opinion, no shame at all in the first two on that list, as long as you cop to it. The main issue is that few people outside of Penn Jillette are ever honest and decent enough to do so. The next few hours will tell us a lot about the vertebrae and virtue of American newsrooms.

In conclusion, let's correct a possible misimpression. Guardian "Long Reads" Editor Jonathan Shainin snarks here that "The campaign to pressure newspapers to publish Charlie Hebdo covers is the great white people social movement of our time." Juvenile white-on-white rhetorical violence aside, there is no such "pressure" campaign. I want Dean Baquet and the rest of America's editors to be honest about their decision-making, is all. If they're worried about the back-office staff getting blown up, I totally understand that, even if I doubt that risk would amount to much if people just acted on their news judgment instead of fear.

But I suspect it's something far less noble. On Sunday The Times ran an article about an eight-foot statue of Mohammed that stood atop a Manhatttan Appellate Division Courthouse without incident for a half-century until 1955, when it was "removed out of deference to Muslims, to whom depictions of the prophet are an affront." The next paragraph is killer:

(For the same reason, The New York Times has chosen not to publish photographs of the statue with this article.)

So it's not that Charlie Hebdo went over the line of decency, it's that The New York Times under Dean Baquet's editorship has elevated a doctrinally questionable and physically non-existent taboo into a red line for the rest of his readers. Scientologists, grab your bricks. Seventh Day Adventists, take note. You, too, can make the historically existing figures who founded your churches into people who can never be depicted in the Paper of Record, even as a picture of long-forgotten, never-controversial statue. You just need to complain with enough force.

UPDATE: Buzzfeed has an initial list of decisions by 23 news organizations.

NEXT: It's Not Just About Race, It's About Power

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Buckeyes #1 Baby!

    1. As a Titans fan I would just like to say that it’s clear Tampa, you should take Winston over Mariota.

      Mariota didn’t win the big one so you have to take Winston. Thems the rules.

    2. “Buckeyes #1 Baby!”
      As a 9ers ‘fan’, I sure wish that team had a QB with the same smarts as that guy Jones.
      Yeah, one INT, but hardly ever negative yards, threw it instead of taking the sack, put it down-field on target and CAN COUNT TO TWENTY FIVE!
      Oh, for such a QB!

  2. What I wouldn’t give for a newspaper that published the cartoons and offered to buy guns for any employees that felt the need to carry.

    1. Move to Europe. In America, we believe in a tame sort of satire, not too impolite or provocative and largely confined to the safe zone of late-night talk shows. Above all, religions need to be respected, because we have “religious” freedom in this country, not secularism. And Internet users beware: if you send out inappropriately deadpan tweets or Gmail “confessions” in the “name” of an academic department chairman or a mayor, you could find yourself facing hard time in the Peoria jail or at Rikers Island. We call that sort of “free expression” identity theft here, not parody or satire. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal satire case at:

  3. Haaha, motherfuckers!

    THE Ohio State University!

    1. THE Ohio

      Tallest midget.

      1. Tallest giant midget?

  4. Fuck.the.Times.and.this.spineless.shit.

    1. ^Exactly. ZERO BALLS.

    2. American print media is now officially worthless. When the biggest newspaper in the country won’t actually print the news, they have volunteered for euthanasia.

      1. All the news that Al Qaeda considers fit to print.

  5. …”The next few hours will tell us a lot about the vertebrae and virtue of American newsrooms.”…

    I’m in agreement in understanding reluctance to endanger your staff. And I’m REALLY in agreement that covering that up with self-righteous twaddle about offending some family in the Bronx is pathetic in the extreme.
    Man-up, own-up, or shut up.

    1. I would accept, as an alternative to printing images of Mohommed, a scathing rebuke of Islam for being a violent ideology of murder which makes it unwise to print said pics.

      If you won’t print ’em, explain why.

      The cowardice isn’t not printing them. It’s lying to yourself (and the public) about why.

  6. Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy.”

    There is something wonderfully clarifying about honesty.

    *standing ovation*

    Yes, yes there is.

    1. Posting it when it’s the middle of the night in the most important time zone in the world doesn’t help.

      I will say that at least Muslims aren’t the only faithful they’re worried about offending.

      1. I will say that at least Muslims aren’t the only faithful they’re worried about offending.

        I wouldn’t say they’re worried. I think they’re still working out the kinks in their brand new set of ethical standards that they’ve been claiming are so old as to hearken back to the founding of the journalistic profession.

  7. Nice article, Matt. Shame it isn’t getting more discussion. I suspect many felt ‘tl;dr’, but they should. Love your writing on the media. And thanks for deconstructing the so-called deference to The Prophet Joseph Smith The Prophet Muhammad.

  8. It’s a sad state of affairs when American journalists can’t show as much balls as the French.

  9. My wife is fluent in French, too. Like Matt, I almost never mention her on these Reason pages either.

    I wonder if that’s where the similarities end.

    1. You know who else was fluent in French?

      1. Jakob Ludwig Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy?

      2. G?rard Depardieu’s balls?

      3. Pepe LePew?

      4. Ast?rix le Gaulois

      5. Jacques Clouseau

      6. Cousin Vicki in National Lampoon’s Vacation?

      7. My friend’s hand puppet Pierre in our middle school knockoff of Pardon the Interruption?

      8. Marcel Marceau!
        Oh, wait…

  10. The Times and other publications know that if readers really want to see the catalyst images for themselves they can always find them online.

    Come to think of it, consumers can probably just go ahead and get all of their news elsewhere online.

    1. I prefer to read my David Brooks in print, thank you very much.

  11. What does it mean when America’s leading newspapers engage in self-censorship out of appeasement or fear of the enemies of a freedom of speech? It means we have lost the basic principle upon which the country is founded. Further, what does it mean when libertarians, a group supposedly at the center of America’s “liberty movement” seem completely oblivious to the fact the free speech has been compromised in their own country. Libertarians need to get out of their bubble and read Fleming Rose, Daniel Pipes or Yuron Brooks–guys who have first hand, personal experience with the Islamist threats on their freedom of speech in America and Europe. Islamist War on Western freedoms is happening now, in this country, and you jokers want to talk about football games. You cannot be taken serious as advocates of freedom.

    1. libertarians…seem completely oblivious to the fact the free speech has been compromised in their own country

      Really? Have you even read this blog? Or should I step back, have you even read the fucking article above??

      1. These are the facts and they are undisputed: libertarians hate free speech and freedom. These are the facts and they are undisputed.

        1. OFFENDED!!

        2. Okay. You guys talk the talk. But when someone advocates that the enemies of free speech should be crushed, that action must be taken–for instance that the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran who are the primary governments supporting these threats–will have to be crushed, do not be so quick to denounce them–as I have been repeatedly on this blog.

          1. David Wall|1.13.15 @ 9:02AM|#
            …”But when someone advocates that the enemies of free speech should be crushed, that action must be taken–for instance that the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran who are the primary governments supporting these threats–will have to be crushed, do not be so quick to denounce them–as I have been repeatedly on this blog.”

            Got called on your war boner, did you? Get lost.

          2. You’re very quick to violence. Though I suspect in your courageous and noble fashion, you’re very quick to have other people engage in violence against another group on your behalf.

        3. Except no one said this.

  12. What we need is a good dose of Tennessee journalism.…..tennessee/

    Mark Twain knew how to write a newspaper.

    The chief turned to me and said, “I am expecting company to dinner, and shall have to get ready. It will be a favor to me if you will read proof and attend to the customers.”

    I winced a little at the idea of attending to the customers, but I was too bewildered by the fusillade that was still ringing in my ears to think of anything to say.

    He continued, “Jones will be here at three?cowhide him. Gillespie will call earlier, perhaps?throw him out of the window. Ferguson will be along about four?kill him. That is all for today, I believe. If you have any odd time, you may write a blistering article on the police?give the chief inspector rats. The cowhides are under the table; weapons in the drawer?ammunition there in the corner?lint and bandages up there in the pigeonholes. In case of accident, go to Lancet, the surgeon, down- stairs. He advertises?we take it out in trade.”

  13. banquet is a kiar and a coward.


  14. Great article. Perhaps if they were more familiar with the Second Amendment, as well as the First, they would not be so terrified. It’s not just one civil right that is important, they are a web.

  15. Article: good job.

    “Beclowning”: nice coinage.

    1. Oh, I did not coin that! And thanks.

      1. Can’t find it in American Heritage nor at

  16. A few Germans still have some balls, at least.

  17. The Old Grey Lady has for long insisted that her government is competent to provide healthcare, universal childcare, free community college, etc., etc., and volume upon volume of regulations.

    She now cowers in fear because that same government cannot secure the right of a free press, for which that government was originally instituted.

    It is no surprise that the Old Grey Lady cannot admit her cowardice, for to do so would be to admit that government is not up to task for even its most elementary purposes.

  18. I agree that Miguel `s st0rry is flabbergasting, last saturday I got a new Lotus Esprit from earning $8938 this past 4 weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . without a doubt it is the most comfortable work I’ve had . I began this 4 months ago and pretty much straight away was bringin in minimum $86… per-hr . Visit Website ~~~~~~~~

  19. “The campaign to pressure newspapers to publish Charlie Hebdo covers is the great white people social movement of our time.”

    This is closer to the truth of why the cartoons weren’t published.

    The Progressive Theocracy finds Islamists useful idiots in it’s war to dismantle freedom in the US, and worldwide, as defended predominantly by evil white people in the Anglosphere.

    Also, who still supposes that the Progressive Theocracy is in favor of free speech? They’ve been at the forefront of effort to delegitimize, sanction, and make illegal all forms of speech based on “offense”.

  20. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did

  21. Of course, a photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine is a different matter…

  22. Free speech includes the freedom to say not.

    Not quite sure if this is a decent excuse but it’s a little safer to protect one’s employees at 5737 Mesmer Ave just east of Marina del Rey than at 620 Eighth Avenue in downtown Manhattan.

    What would happen if the NY Times was hit? Do you really really want to encourage just that? It would be Paris all over again – a thousand fold and a huge victory for the Muslim extremists.

    “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens” which includes “a time to be silent and a time to speak” according to that Good Book.

    Isn’t it okay to be non-responsive from time to time.


  23. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did

  24. What did the real Mohammed look like? Oh wait, we don’t know. As in the Old Testament, Allah (same God as in the Old Testament) prohibited “graven” images. The theory being that you would pray to the image (painting, mosaic, drawing, or statue) rather than to God/Allah.

    A cartoon image depicting a man with a turban on his head and a beard could be an image of any of a million men named Mohammed, who wear turbans and have beards. It can’t the prophet Mohammed. We don’t know what he looked like and it is highly unlikely that the cartoon image in anyway closely resembles the real prophet Mohammed. Further, it is unlikely that anyone would pray to the cartoon image. If a cartoon image of a man wearing a baseball cap, with no beard, was drawn and labeled as the prophet Mohammed, would anyone take it seriously? Would anyone think that could be the prophet Mohammed?

    But wait, I’m speaking from logic and talking about a religion which is not logical, as all religions are not logical. The emotions (religions are emotionally driven) of anger and hatred are easier to ignite than the emotions of love and tolerance. A person who is willing to kill over a cartoon image is mentally deranged, emotionally unstable. A religion that promotes such killings needs to be laughed off the face of the Earth.

  25. I just got paid USD 6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over USD 9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do

  26. I buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people aren’t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the best deals is

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.