AFTONBLADET
AFTONBLADET
The craft of
responsible publishing
This year started darkly for free speech and satire, with
a bloody line drawn between them and us: them, who
believe in uniformity, violence and a strictly controlled
world; and us, who believe in diversity, open society and
free speech.
So how can we explain why some of us vehemently
and almost aggressively demand that all media publish
the same stereotypical satirical images you find in Charlie
Hebdo?
On an emotional level, it is easy to understand. The
rage we feel towards the terrorists must find an outlet.
Publishing the images that people died for is an understandable way to demonstrate for freedom of speech.
But even in this gravest of situations, we must also
identify what is most important to defend: Charlie Hebdo’s unconditional right to publish satirical images. There
is more than one way to defend that right. We may have
different ideas of whether satire that depicts people of
faith as stereotypes is appropriate. We can discuss that,
but under no circumstances should we resort to violence
to stop it. Exactly there, and nowhere else, is where the
line between them and us lies.
Aftonbladet’s stance on Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons was the
same as most of the world’s news media. We published
some of them because they are newsworthy, to increase
understanding for Charlie Hebdo as a publication: an intellectual, left-leaning magazine that seeks to deliberately
provoke. It continues a French tradition of satire that does
not exist in Sweden. We showed our support for Charlie
Hebdo, and freedom of speech, by changing our logotype
to Je suis Charlie, (I am Charlie).
Some argue that a careful stance on Charlie Hebdo’s
satirical images is in itself tacit support for terrorism.
They are inclined to republish the Charlie Hebdo pictures
in an absurd competition among the world’s media: Who
condemns terrorism the most? Even though, of course, all
sane media clearly condemn the terrorist act.
Several of the world’s largest media outlets refrained
from republishing Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons. In a thoughtful article in the New York Times, Margaret Sullivan
writes about Editor-in-chief Dean Baquet’s decision not to
publish the cartoons. At first he was convinced he would
republish the pictures because of their “newsworthiness
and based on a sense of solidarity with the murdered
journalists and the right to free speech.”
78
Jan Helin
Editor-in-chief
On the one hand,
it is unnecessary to
insult religious groups
in defence of free
speech. On the other
hand, anyone who
wants to publish obviously has the right
to do so.
After further thought, and having spoken to several of the
newspaper’s senior staff, he ultimately kept to New York
Times policy, which differentiates between “unjustified insult and satire”. Most of Charlie Hebdo’s most controversial
images, according to Baquet, were unjustifiable insults, and
therefore he decided not to publish any of them.
Asked why he couldn’t have chosen a few of the less
controversial pictures, Baquet answered that such a stance
would likely lead to a compromise that would render publication meaningless. It is possible that this argument is a
reflection of American society that, unlike secular Sweden,
understands the tension between two pillars of an open
society: freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
On the one hand, it is unnecessary to insult rel igious
groups in defence of free speech. On the other hand, anyone
who wants to publish obviously has the right to do so. In
any case, it illustrates the craft of responsible publishing.
Publishers make different assessments using different
motivations: clearly a central function for diversity and free
speech in practice.
In the summer of 2014 the biggest forest
fire in swedish history raged in Västmanland.
PHOTO: Andreas Bardell.
79