Topic: Shooting at Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris

[The Gulleysucker]

Five of my local secondary schools also failed Ofsted reports for similar reasons, special measures were put in place and some of them failed again
None of these are "faith" schools.

I never said failure was peculiar to just Faith schools, I was simply highlighting the dull detail that those particular schools in question, despite the previous protestation, had actually failed, and for the very reasons that were being denied.

However, it's fascinating to see the now somewhat slightly predictable attempt at deflection from that erroneous claim that was made.

[Conocinico]

The Daily Telegraph’s chief political commentator has resigned and accuses the newspaper of refusing to publish negative stories about HSBC because it was a major advertiser
LARA O'REILLY ADVERTISING    FEB. 18, 2015, 2:05 AM
peter oborne
The Daily Telegraph
Peter Oborne has resigned from The Daily Telegraph.

The Daily Telegraph’s chief political commentator Peter Oborne has resigned from the British newspaper, leaving behind a blistering attack on his former employer in a post on the Open Democracy website.

In it, Oborne says the newspaper’s coverage (or lack of it) on HSBC is a “fraud on readers,” accusing The Daily Telegraph of refusing to cover major disparaging stories about the bank because it is a key advertiser.

Oborne begins his post the paper’s “collapse in standards,” as it experienced a sharp decline in print ciruclation, followed by “waves of sackings.” The situation became “more and more dismaying” in 2014 when much-loved editor Tony Gallagher was sacked and replaced with Jason Seiken, who took up a role as “head of content.” With the arrival of Seiken came the arrival of a “click culture,” which Oborne believes inflicted “incalcuable damage on the reputation of the paper.”

The damage bled into the divide between the print and editorial department. “There is a great deal of evidence that, at the Telegraph, this distinction has collapsed.”

Oborne first noticed an issue when he began work on a story about HSBC contacting well-known British Muslims, who had received letters from the bank informing them their accounts had been closed, with no reason given. Oborne says he submitted his story for publication on The Telegraph’s website, but it was not published. He made some enquiries.

“I was fobbed off with excuses, then told there weas a legal problem. When I asked the legal department, the lawyers were unaware of any difficulty. When I pushed the point, an executive took me aside and said that ‘there is a bit of an issue with HSBC’,” Oborne writes.

These types of instances were common, according to Oborne. Another story about HSBC, this article written by former telegraph banking correspondent Harry Wilson, about a “black hole” in HSBC’s accounts was published, then swiftly removed from the Telegraph’s website, Oborne says. You can still find Wilson’s tweet promoting the story here, but the link is no longer accessible. HSBC declined to comment on the reasons the article was removed, when contacted by Oborne.

Oborne also points to the minimal coverage The Telegraph has given to HSBC stories that have recently dominated the front pages, such as the blow to the bank’s profits as it set aside more than £1 billion for customer compensation, and more recently the news about its Swiss banking arm allegedly being involved in a wide scale tax evasion scheme.

Beyond HSBC, Oborne also suggests The Telegraph has run favorable pieces about key advertisers such as cruise liner company Cunards and Tesco.

Oborne took his concerns to Telegraph Media Group CEO Murdoch MacLennan and chariman Aidan Barclay by writing a letter, alongside his resignation notice. Oborne received a “cursory” repsonse from Barclay, hoping he would reconsider. But he met with MacLennan who was “unapologetic” saying the relationship between advertising and editorial was “not as bad as all that.” Worryingly, MacLennan added that there was “a long history of this sort of thing at The Telegraph.”

Another who's just gone up in my estimation. I would post his resignation letter but opendemocracy.net is down atm.

[bigbonedrawky]

I never said failure was peculiar to just Faith schools, I was simply highlighting the dull detail that those particular schools in question, despite the previous protestation, had actually failed, and for the very reasons that were being denied.

However, it's fascinating to see the now somewhat slightly predictable attempt at deflection from that erroneous claim that was made.

? I never said you said...
The entire discussion about Ofsted is in it's self a deflection from the topic of this thread re Charlie Hebdo. So i suppose you're right, me talking about my local schools getting sh*tty Ofsted reports because of sh*tty teaching is just another deflection.

However Its interesting that you singled out my post when talking about "somewhat slightly predictable attempt at deflection" care to expand on that Sir  ?

[The Gulleysucker]

It wasn't your post I was referring to as a deflection, it was the reply to mine.

[GreatEx]

Definition and purpose are two different things. So go ahead, buy your dictionary but it won;t help you.

And, while you're at it buy Will Self a dictionary...he's the one who outlined that 'purpose' for satire. He's a satirist...I'd expect him to have a bit of an insight into the purpose of satire.

No thanks, I'd rather not narrow my world view to the edicts of one man whose opinions resonate with me. I know what satire is. I don't know who or what a Will Self is. Thanks anyway.

[Piggies in Blankies]

No thanks, I'd rather not narrow my world view to the edicts of one man whose opinions resonate with me. I know what satire is. I don't know who or what a Will Self is. Thanks anyway.

[SP]

Another who's just gone up in my estimation. I would post his resignation letter but opendemocracy.net is down atm.

I think it is in the Tory Bastards topic.

[The Gulleysucker]

 
That was funny.

I must confess I do quite like Mr Selfie, at times.

He's undeniably exceptionally bright and erudite.

But he is a media commentator, one who has found a particular niche, yet he is but one of many similar commentators across a spectrum of opinions so I wouldn't hold his pronouncements as some kind of immutable truth.

And while he undoubtedly usually has a considered and certainly well articulated opinion on many things, I wouldn't recommend anyone to regard him as being the sole and only arbiter of definitions.

[jooneyisdagod]

No thanks, I'd rather not narrow my world view to the edicts of one man whose opinions resonate with me. I know what satire is. I don't know who or what a Will Self is. Thanks anyway.

Tremendous.

[robgomm]

Of course Self isn't the arbiter of satire and nor does he claim to be.

But you're only doing yourself a disservice if you dismiss his views on this because they are very well thought out and interesting.

["21C or 70F?" SchizoidWeatherMan!]

No thanks, I'd rather not narrow my world view to the edicts of one man whose opinions resonate with me. I know what satire is. I don't know who or what a Will Self is. Thanks anyway.

That's a needlessly glib response to a well thought out piece, even if you do not agree with his views. Such 'putdowns' take away from the debate and add nothing of substance.

Nobody is asking you to define your 'worldview' based on his beliefs. The least you can do is have a read and come back with a decent rebuttal in the spirit of discussion.

[At the Xmas works do asking someone to give them one]

That's a needlessly glib response to a well thought out piece, even if you do not agree with his views.

Why don't you tell us why it's a well thought out piece? In the spirit of discussion. Besides one man's "needlessly glib" is another man's "amusing".

The problem for the staunch defenders of Western values is that each and every one of us possesses this capacity for evil – it's implicit in having an ego at all; so when the demonstrators stood in the Place de la Republique holding placards that read "JE SUIS CHARLIE", they might just as well have held ones reading: "NOUS SOMMES LES TERRORISTES".

I think this is nonsense. What does it add to the debate in any form when we equate the capacity for doing something with actually doing it.


http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/will-self-charlie-hebdo-attack-the-west-satire-france-terror-105

[Yorkykopite]

That's a needlessly glib response to a well thought out piece, even if you do not agree with his views.

You've misunderstood his post. It wasn't a response to Will Self's piece. It was a response to someone constantly quoting the same article as if it represents some divine truth.

[boots]

Do you know, I learn more about current events and read more reasoned debates on RAWK than I do in any media based facility. You'd never read owt like this on any other footie forum i'm sure. Shankly's legacy persists.

[Malaysian Kopite]

Do you know, I learn more about current events and read more reasoned debates on RAWK than I do in any media based facility. You'd never read owt like this on any other footie forum i'm sure. Shankly's legacy persists.

Aye, this and another forum(one about video games but much like RAWK the best part of it is in the off topic corner) are brilliant in that regard. In all honesty RAWK has affected a large part of my thinking and worldview. A thread title "How has RAWK changed you?" would be an interesting read.

[Alan_X]

That's a needlessly glib response to a well thought out piece, even if you do not agree with his views. Such 'putdowns' take away from the debate and add nothing of substance.

Nobody is asking you to define your 'worldview' based on his beliefs. The least you can do is have a read and come back with a decent rebuttal in the spirit of discussion

It was satirical... and therefore nicely in keeping with the thread.

[Yorkykopite]

It was satirical...

Ha, but was he 'punching up' or 'punching down'?

[Alan_X]

That's not the discussion though. Did you listen to Will Self?

One of the reasons he's relevant is because he is a famous satirist. And, another thing here, which is more to the point, he outlines the purpose of satire. The purpose being to comfort the afflicted rather than offend and hurt them. Thus, the satire which we are talking about fails it's purpose. And the use of satire is always to convey another point, but satire that comes from France is of a militant secular nature and to impose those values through satire on other nations is a form imperialism.

The idea that satire's primary goal should be to comfort the afflicted made no sense to me so I did a little research and actually the phrase 'comfort the afflicted' has nothing to do with the definition of satire. It was coined by Finley Peter Dunne speaking in the character of the fictional Mr Dooley, an irish immigrant living in Chicago who spent most of his days in the pub. The irony is that the quote is a satire on the hypocrisy and self-importance of newspapers. The full quote runs like this:

"Th newspaper does ivrything f'r us. It runs th' polis foorce an' th' banks, commands th' milishy, controls th' ligislachure, baptizes th' young, marries th' foolish, comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable, buries th' dead an' roasts thim aftherward".

Yet Will Self claims that this is in fact a definition of what constitutes good journalism, and one which he then (mis) uses as his 'yardstick' for what is good satire. The obvious point of the Mr Dooley piece is that the newspapers don't do all those things - they are just so self-important that they think they do.

I'll pass on Mr Self's opinion in this case.

You can be superficial or you can be more researched and thoughtful...to be the latter one should consult authorities such as academics. My wife is a doctoral student and in order to get an understanding of any sub-topic papers from experts must be read. So it makes sense for us to have a better than superficial and incorrect understanding on a topic...research needs to be done...research is generally produced by academics

Indeed you can be more researched... and research is the responsibility of everyone. If you find a quote that perfectly fits your opinion - question it. There are academics who can be found to bolster most opinions - it's up to you to investigate whether there's evidence to support that opinion.

[bigbonedrawky]

It wasn't your post I was referring to as a deflection, it was the reply to mine.

Oh right i misunderstood your post 

[robgomm]

Self didn't define satire, he said he believes it has a moral purpose and took that line to encapsulate that purpose, which is absolutely fine. If you want to argue about the line, it's interesting but it doesn't actually deal with this point:

Is it a good way to think about satire that it afflicts the comfortable and comforts the afflicted?

To me, that is a pretty good way to think about it.

[Piggies in Blankies]

Self didn't define satire, he said he believes it has a moral purpose and took that line to encapsulate that purpose, which is absolutely fine. If you want to argue about the line, it's interesting but it doesn't actually deal with this point:

Is it a good way to think about satire that it afflicts the comfortable and comforts the afflicted?

To me, that is a pretty good way to think about it.

The satire of Charlie Hebdo was afflicting those who were comfortable in using murder to make their point.  It comforted the people who were afflicted by being targeted with murder as result of drawing the original Mohammed cartoons.....
There we go, Charlie Hebdo was good satire by his own standards.

[Yorkykopite]

Self didn't define satire, he said he believes it has a moral purpose and took that line to encapsulate that purpose, which is absolutely fine. If you want to argue about the line, it's interesting but it doesn't actually deal with this point:

Is it a good way to think about satire that it afflicts the comfortable and comforts the afflicted?

To me, that is a pretty good way to think about it.

But what if the "afflicted" are anti-Semites as the killers in Paris and Copenhagen were?

Or racists like the Chelsea fans in Paris were last night.

Neither group can be said to have power. Should satire therefore steer away from poking fun at them? 

[GreatEx]

Saying that satire should only have strong - i.e. safe - targets is the same as saying satire has a duty not to offend, as many of the "I condemn what happened in Paris, but..." mob were claiming. It's a watered-down, cowardly definition that in the case of Islamic terrorism is giving in to the threat.

[robgomm]

But what if the "afflicted" are anti-Semites as the killers in Paris and Copenhagen were?

Or racists like the Chelsea fans in Paris were last night.

Neither group can be said to have power. Should satire therefore steer away from poking fun at them?

What if the afflicted are your average Muslims in France, whose religious practice is targeted and demonised by the state, who suffered ever more as their places of worship were attacked as a result of terrorism that abuses and sullies the name of their religion that they practice peacefully?

In one sense, those killers weren't afflicted the moment they decided violence, which is a form of power, was the answer. They had all the power when they walked into Charlie Hebdo's offices armed. The Chelsea fans had all the power, again because they used violence and mob rule to shove a man off a train - who was powerless in that situation really, them or the poor guy not allowed to get on the metro?

If we go away from situationally, though, to what you meant - yes, both groups are powerless. You won't find support for the Chelsea fans and you won't find widespread support for terrorists. So yes, both groups are powerless in that regard and that's exactly why they are a largely pointless target for satire. Charlie Hebdo were supposedly defending free speech but free speech as a principle wasn't and isn't under threat. It is enshrined in law, Charlie Hebdo was part funded by government to publish its next issue which featured another cartoon of Mohammed - free speech is thriving. Twas ever thus, with terrorism it is life that is threatened and any and all justifications are used to make that threat, whether it's publishing a cartoon of Mohammed or boarding a tube train to get to work in the morning.

The cycle is that terrorists commit violence in the name of Islam, they whip up a hostile reaction to Islam with the full intent that non-violent Muslims become targeted and that Islam becomes a dirty word. This further ostracises Muslims and there will always be ones they can cream off to join their terror network, which exists to serve some impossible cosmic ambition or, in the case of ISIS, also to pilfer, to launder and to hoard riches. All that happens when we buy into anti-Muslim sentiment or decide to upset your average, already afflicted Muslim by laughing at their religion is to further the aims of terrorists.

I am absolutely, of course, for Charlie Hebdo having the freedom to choose to publish cartoons of Mohammed or not. They made a choice and. But I believe their choice was wrong. There is nothing wrong with self-censorship, we do it all the time to prevent causing harm and because freedom of speech is not vocalising every thought you have.  Charlie Hebdo in my view caused more upset to your average Muslim by printing pictures of Mohammed. The terrorist attack on them caused a new world of pain - but you won't find any sympathy because a Muslim is a Muslim and they all become the enemy. The terrorists win and we erode our own values.

[Alan_X]

Self didn't define satire, he said he believes it has a moral purpose and took that line to encapsulate that purpose, which is absolutely fine. If you want to argue about the line, it's interesting but it doesn't actually deal with this point:

Is it a good way to think about satire that it afflicts the comfortable and comforts the afflicted?

To me, that is a pretty good way to think about it.

A couple of things. I was responding to 'Rap's post where he claimed that Self defined satire in those terms. I carefully pointed out that Self (wrongly) claimed the afflicted/comfort idea was coined as the definition of good journalism (it wasn't) and that he then personally used it as a 'yardstick' for what constitutes good satire. You're taking that a step further and ascribing moral purpose to satire.

All if which is patently bollocks.

Satire is satire. The point of satire is to attack your targets with wounding and scathing humour. There is no moral imperative to avoid upset or discomfort. If a despot uses propaganda and the cult of personality to endear himself to his followers then satirising will upset those he oppresses.

You evidently missed the point that Self was misusing the quote and misusing it at one remove. 'Mr Dooley's' point was that the press do not comfort the afflicted or afflict the comfortable - their job is to report the news.

And the job of satire is not to report but to land blows against the powerful and privileged.

[robgomm]

A couple of things. I was responding to 'Rap's post where he claimed that Self defined satire in those terms. I carefully pointed out that Self (wrongly) claimed the afflicted/comfort idea was coined as the definition of good journalism (it wasn't) and that he then personally used it as a 'yardstick' for what constitutes good satire. You're taking that a step further and ascribing moral purpose to satire.

He ascribed a moral purpose in his piece, I haven't taken it any further.

Satire is satire. The point of satire is to attack your targets with wounding and scathing humour. There is no moral imperative to avoid upset or discomfort. If a despot uses propaganda and the cult of personality to endear himself to his followers then satirising will upset those he oppresses.

But you also say "And the job of satire is not to report but to land blows against the powerful and privileged." So satire is not satire and the despot would not be satirising his victims. Wounding and scathing humour is not always satire and satire is not always wounding and scathing humour (it often is but not always and it's not enough to define it in those terms).

I don't know what shape a moral purpose takes and I don't suggest it's to avoid harm per se. It might be counter productive, though, to satirise a soft target. A moral imperative might just be aiming at a greater good. I don't know if satire necessarily has any moral purpose or not, I think it's an interesting notion though.

You evidently missed the point that Self was misusing the quote and misusing it at one remove. 'Mr Dooley's' point was that the press do not comfort the afflicted or afflict the comfortable - their job is to report the news.

I didn't miss the point, I said the point didn't much matter as it doesn't stop Self's description of satire from being useful and one starting point for discussion.

[Roger Federer]

I am absolutely, of course, for Charlie Hebdo having the freedom to choose to publish cartoons of Mohammed or not. They made a choice and. But I believe their choice was wrong. There is nothing wrong with self-censorship, we do it all the time to prevent causing harm and because freedom of speech is not vocalising every thought you have.  Charlie Hebdo in my view caused more upset to your average Muslim by printing pictures of Mohammed.

I'm far from an expert on Charlie Hebdo, and have a very limited understanding of the french language, but from what I've seen, their cartoons seem to target not the ordinary muslim, but rather the fanatics, the murderers of IS and their ilk. I know muslims (or anyone else apparently) are not 'allowed' to make an image of Mohammad at all, no matter what the context is, but I imagine that many, many muslims around the world don't actually have much of a problem with that either. Why side with the ones that do, rather than support those that don't? Is it the fact they printed images of Muhammed that you think is wrong, or is it any specific drawings you object to? As said, the ones I've seen have mostly been used to satirise IS and similar groups, and I really don't understand why anyone (muslim or not) would find that offensive or wrong. They were quite funny as well.

[Conocinico]

You evidently missed the point that Self was misusing the quote and misusing it at one remove. 'Mr Dooley's' point was that the press do not comfort the afflicted or afflict the comfortable - their job is to report the news.

Self and everybody who's heard that quote. It's how it's remembered. Much like how "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is considered good advice or Make me smile (come up and see me) is considered a romantic song. They've all been widely understood in contrast to the author's original intention. It's hardly something to be critical of.

[BUSHMILLS]

I am absolutely, of course, for Charlie Hebdo having the freedom to choose to publish cartoons of Mohammed or not. They made a choice. But

Last word says it all.

[KiNki]

Self and everybody who's heard that quote. It's how it's remembered. Much like how "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is considered good advice or Make me smile (come up and see me) is considered a romantic song. They've all been widely understood in contrast to the author's original intention. It's hardly something to be critical of.

He's a journalist.

I think once upon a time when he was a budding journalist student he was taught the history of journalism, where it sprung from, what its purpose was.  To hold powerful institutes to account.  Like the Church.  That's the journalists job.

I'm sure as an author he's also familiar with the world of satire.

Charlie hebdo and others have mocked, like all good satirists, all religions....hebdo then poked fun at the idea that you cant depict mo.  Even if they drew his best side. 



Self preservation.

[GreatEx]

Much like how "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is considered good advice or Make me smile (come up and see me) is considered a romantic song.

And how Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You" is a popular choice for the first dance at weddings, even though it's patently a break-up song.

[Conocinico]

I'm sorry KiNki, I don't understand what relevance this has to my post.

[Conocinico]

And how Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You" is a popular choice for the first dance at weddings, even though it's patently a break-up song.

And it's patently a shit song. But yeah that sort of thing.

I've thought of another one. Kipling's line, "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet," is often used to summarise the otherness and impenetrability of different cultures, yet the whole poem was about the exact opposite.

But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!”

[Alan_X]

Self and everybody who's heard that quote. It's how it's remembered. Much like how "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is considered good advice or Make me smile (come up and see me) is considered a romantic song. They've all been widely understood in contrast to the author's original intention. It's hardly something to be critical of.

Of course it's something to be critical of. He builds his entire position on a quote that he wrongly attributes to H L Menken and it's a quote that was never intended to be applied to satire. Personally I always thought the main point of journalism was to get the facts correct.

I reacted to Self's use of the phrase because it's patently not, and never has been, the purpose of satire to 'comfort the afflicted'.  'Rap's reference to Self and Self's reference to Menken are both arguments from authority. They attempt to say not just that the phrase is a good definition of satire, but that it is a definition backed up by precedent and expert opinion.

If you or 'Rap' or Self or anyone else want to demonstrate that satire's purpose is to 'comfort the afflicted' then it should be straightforward to show endless examples from the thousands of years that satire has been part of human discourse. I'm struggling to think of any. Does Southpark comfort the afflicted? How did Gulliver's Travels do it?... How do Animal Farm or 1984 manage to 'comfort the afflicted'? When Pope wrote the Rape of the Lock who was he comforting?

Satire attacks. That's its purpose and its definition. You may want your satirists to be nice and inoffensive but that has fuck all to do with what satire is and always has been.

[robgomm]

Last word says it all.

It says freedom of speech is not absolute.

[robgomm]

I'm far from an expert on Charlie Hebdo, and have a very limited understanding of the french language, but from what I've seen, their cartoons seem to target not the ordinary muslim, but rather the fanatics, the murderers of IS and their ilk. I know muslims (or anyone else apparently) are not 'allowed' to make an image of Mohammad at all, no matter what the context is, but I imagine that many, many muslims around the world don't actually have much of a problem with that either. Why side with the ones that do, rather than support those that don't? Is it the fact they printed images of Muhammed that you think is wrong, or is it any specific drawings you object to? As said, the ones I've seen have mostly been used to satirise IS and similar groups, and I really don't understand why anyone (muslim or not) would find that offensive or wrong. They were quite funny as well.

Publishing any image of Mohammed does not just upset fanatics, it upsets many average Muslims. It did upset average Muslims in France.

As Obama has just said, we need to do all we can to avoid giving terrorists religious legitimacy. If you want to satirise terrorists, use symbols and imagery of terrorism and not symbols and imagery they merely reinforces a perception that Islam itself is the root of the problem.

[robgomm]

Satire attacks. That's its purpose and its definition. You may want your satirists to be nice and inoffensive but that has fuck all to do with what satire is and always has been.

You keep making this straw man argument.

Afflict the comfortable means, if you like, insult or offend those in positions of power or comfort and that gives those afflicted some sense of solidarity.

It doesn't mean satire be toothless. Chris Morris is my favourite satirist, by the way, hardly nice and inoffensive but usually if he causes offence there is a well thought through point to make.

[Alan_X]

Publishing any image of Mohammed does not just upset fanatics, it upsets many average Muslims. It did upset average Muslims in France.

As Obama has just said, we need to do all we can to avoid giving terrorists religious legitimacy. If you want to satirise terrorists, use symbols and imagery of terrorism and not symbols and imagery they merely reinforces a perception that Islam itself is the root of the problem.

The targets were Islamist extremists who issued decrees calling for the death of the Danish cartoonist because he drew a cartoon of Mohamed. The targets weren't just the terrorists who carried out the attacks but anyone who think it's legitimate, justifiable or even understandable to murder someone for drawing a cartoon of the prophet.

[Alan_X]

You keep making this straw man argument.

Afflict the comfortable means, if you like, insult or offend those in positions of power or comfort and that gives those afflicted some sense of solidarity.

It doesn't mean satire be toothless. Chris Morris is my favourite satirist, by the way, hardly nice and inoffensive but usually if he causes offence there is a well thought through point to make.

How on earth is that a straw man argument? if anyone is making a straw man argument it's Will Self with his made up 'test' of what constitutes satire.

I'll just repeat again - 'afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted' is not and never has been a definition of satire. It's not even a very good definition of good journalism.

And Chris Morris? Really? The Brass Eye Paedogeddon special received 3,000 complaints and was a gloriously offensive and savage attack on the moral panic and media hysteria over paedophillia. I don't think it did anything or tried to do anything other than have a go. It didn't comfort anyone.

How did the lyrics to the Myra Hindley song in the Sex episode 'comfort' the relatives of the Moors Murder victims?

Every time I see your picture, Myra/I have to phone my latest girlfriend up and fire her/And find a prostitute who looks like you and hire her/Oh, me oh Myra

What did you think of Four Lions? by the way...

[Piggies in Blankies]

Quite