Anglo-Saxon media censors themselves | Hacker News Reader

Anglo-Saxon media censors themselves

translate.google.com

30 pointstscherno16 comments

An alternate take: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/08/guardia...

TLDR: the decision of what a media outlet should publish belongs with that outlet and fear of violent reprisals is very far from being the only reason to not publish an item.

If every media outlet shows the uncensored image there isn't a single target for violent reprisals.

Collectively shouting "I'm Spartacus" protects the collective and sends a strong message.

Thanks for the link. I was wondering how they rationalize this decision of censoring themselves, but it actually makes sense, especially this part - "Other publications can defend – and defend absolutely – the necessary diversity of press voices along with an editor’s right to offend. But the best response is not to be forced to speak in a different voice."

You should replace the example of a neonazi journalist. It is a really bad one considering a lot of people consider wrongly Charlie Hebdo as a racist journal (one of the people killed was a corrector, Mustapha Ourad, and did not have the french nationality).

The cartoons are a very key part of this story. By censoring them, you're censoring a part of the news, which has nothing to do with the voice or stance of your newspaper.

The right to free speech also includes the right to not republish things you think are crap (or just not appropriate) …

That seems so obvious to me. Obviously, if it’s the fear of violent attacks that leads to that behaviour then that’s problematic, but that’s a separate discussion.

What a disgraceful statement of cowardice. They didn't even sign their names to the editorial.

Maybe, but this is still what people call censorship [1], so the claim is arguably true.

[1] The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. (www.oxforddictionaries.com/)

Edit: (Trying to be more factual) NYDailyNews removed unacceptable parts, which is censorship according to [1]. I'm not claiming this was a good/bad decision.

The terrorists seem to win...

Link is not working.

Works for me. Non-Translate link: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/anschlag-in-par...

When you see a term "Anglo-Saxon" in an article that isn't about medieval history, it is a sure sign of tinfoil.

(However if you're wearing a tinfoil hat that doesn't mean THEY don't try to affect your thoughts)

That is however the standard way in French to mean "the English-speaking world", specifically the USA-UK-Canada group of countries.

Source: I'm French.

Not really, "Anglo-Saxon" is the standard term when speaking of the English speaking world in Germany. It has no "tinfoil hat" connotation at all.

An example of that, LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-golinkin-ukraine-...

"But after 4,700 deaths in eastern Ukraine and Crimea"

How many deaths in Crimea? Somewhere under five.

How many deaths in Eastern Ukraine? Still ~4,700 after subtracting Crimea.

A more appropriate modern term is "Anglosphere".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com