‘I AM NOT CHARLIE’

Leaked Newsroom E-mails Reveal Al Jazeera Fury over Global Support for Charlie Hebdo

As journalists worldwide reacted with universal revulsion at the massacre of some of their own by Islamic jihadists in Paris, Al Jazeera English editor and executive producer Salah-AldeenKhadr sent out a staff-wide e-mail.

“Please accept this note in the spirit it is intended — to make our coverage the best it can be,” the London-based Khadr wrote Thursday, in the first of a series of internal e-mails leaked to National Review Online. “We are Al Jazeera!”

Below was a list of “suggestions” for how anchors and correspondents at the Qatar-based news outlet should cover Wednesday’s slaughter at the Charlie Hebdo office (the full e-mails can be found below).

Khadr urged his employees to ask if this was “really an attack on ‘free speech,’” discuss whether “I Am Charlie” is an “alienating slogan,” caution viewers against “making this a free speech aka ‘European Values’ under attack binary [sic],” and portray the attack as “a clash of extremist fringes.”

“Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile,” Khadr wrote. “Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response — however illegitimate — is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.”

His denunciation of Charlie Hebdo’s publication of cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed didn’t sit well with some Al Jazeera English employees.

Hours later, U.S.-based correspondent Tom Ackerman sent an email quoting a paragraph from a January 7 blog post by Ross Douthat. The New York Times’ Douthat (film critic for National Review) argued that cartoons like the ones that drove the radical Islamists to murder must be published “because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.”

That precipitated an angry backlash from the network’s Qatar-based correspondents, revealing in the process a deep cultural rift at a network at times accused of overt anti-Western bias.

“I guess if you insult 1.5 billion people chances are one or two of them will kill you,” wrote Mohamed Vall Salem, who reported for Al Jazeera’s Arab-language channel before joining its English wing in 2006. “And I guess if you encourage people to go on insulting 1.5 billion people about their most sacred icons then you just want more killings because as I said in 1.5 billion there will remain some fools who don’t abide by the laws or know about free speech” [sic].

“What Charlie Hebdo did was not free speech it was an abuse of free speech in my opinion, go back to the cartoons and have a look at them!” Salem later wrote. “It’ snot [sic] about what the drawing said, it was about how they said it. I condemn those heinous killings, but I’M NOT CHARLIE.”

That prompted BBC alumna Jacky Rowland — now Al Jazeera English’s senior correspondent in Paris — to email a “polite reminder” to her colleague: “#journalismsinotacrime.”

But her response triggered a furious reaction from another of the network’s Arab correspondents. “First I condemn the brutal killing,” wrote Omar Al Saleh, a “roving reporter” currently on assignment in Yemen. “But I AM NOT CHARLIE.”

“JOURNALISM IS NOT A CRIME [but] INSULTISM IS NOT JOURNALISM,” he raged. “AND NOT DOING JOURNALISM PROPERLY IS A CRIME.”

The heated back-and-forth reflects Al Jazeera English’s precarious balance between its Arab center of gravity and the Western correspondents it employs. After being accused for years of fomenting anti-Western sentiment, most damningly by some of its own anchors, the network made a concerted effort to rebrand, hiring a slew of American and European reporters — especially those who had trouble getting jobs in their own domestic markets.

As these internal e-mails show, that rebranding seems to have taken a toll on the network’s newsroom cohesion — particularly regarding stories like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, which break so sharply on cultural fault lines.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ls-reveal-al-jazeera-fury-over-global-support
 
In the Jewish Supermarket shooting in Paris, one employee risked his life and saved 15 people...a Muslim employee. And his response to the media "We are brothers. It's not a question of Jews, of Christians or of Muslims"
Lassana Bathily, Muslim Employee At Kosher Market, Saved Several People During Paris Hostage Situation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/10/lassana-bathily_n_6448500.html
if muslims want any respect for their religion and have any hope of the whole world not treating them like the Nazis treated the jews, they need to be as a group the most outspoken condemnation of these terrorists who call themselves muslim. (not too sure about the English on that one, but you get the idea.)
 
I bet those AJ journalists with all their religious sensitivity don't have any problems with people making the most vile comments about Jews or Judaism.

We Americans have done a poor job of upholding freedom of expression as well. Conservatives and increasingly people who do not favor islam will face mob censorship on most college campuses. The limp-wrist administrators tolerate and abet it. Voice a less than enthusiastic opinion about homosexuality and you can kiss your career goodbye at virtually any university, government body or corporation.

Saturday Night Live felt free to mock Sarah Palin's religious beliefs in the crudest terms. They wil never insult a muslim however. The NYT, WashPost and other liberal papers will publish political cartoons attacking or mocking Christians and Christian leaders with no thought to any possible offense. When have you ever seen them do the same with islam?
 
I bet those AJ journalists with all their religious sensitivity don't have any problems with people making the most vile comments about Jews or Judaism.

We Americans have done a poor job of upholding freedom of expression as well. Conservatives and increasingly people who do not favor islam will face mob censorship on most college campuses. The limp-wrist administrators tolerate and abet it. Voice a less than enthusiastic opinion about homosexuality and you can kiss your career goodbye at virtually any university, government body or corporation.

Saturday Night Live felt free to mock Sarah Palin's religious beliefs in the crudest terms. They wil never insult a muslim however. The NYT, WashPost and other liberal papers will publish political cartoons attacking or mocking Christians and Christian leaders with no thought to any possible offense. When have you ever seen them do the same with islam?
you must remember, there is a difference between the majority and the minority. When you are a minority (and I have been one) you view all of life from your minority status. When you are the majority (and I have been one) everybody makes fun of you no problem. That is just the way of life.

We, as a majority, give special deference to the minority. And that is just the true American Way.
 
there is a difference between humor and a plan to marginalize and lie for political reasons.

look at how that media and the establishment have tried to demonize the tea party for being stupid and bigoted.

when new york times pols and a yale professor have found the tea party to be more educated

The tea party and conservative vote and elect minorites like alan west and mia love to congress.
 
Last edited:
there is a difference humor and a plan to marginalize and lie for political reasons.

look at how that media and the establishment has tried to demonize the tea party for being stupid and bigoted.

when new york times pols and a yale professor has found the tea party to be more educated and the tea party and conservative vote and elects minorites like alan west and mia love to congress.
TEA, started by Rick Santelli, stands for "Taxed Enough Already" in response to every democrat solution which involves either spending more or taxing more.

I have heard main stream media trying to discredit the TEA party by saying, "It actually is not like the Boston Tea Party at all."
 
even the professor who did the study and found the tea party to be more scientific explained he was surprised based on the media coverage.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/874...tea-party-supporters-scientifically-literate/


I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension.

But then again, I don’t know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party. All my impressions come from watching cable tv — & I don’t watch Fox News very often — and reading the “paper” (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico).

I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.

TEA, started by Rick Santelli, stands for "Taxed Enough Already" in response to every democrat solution which involves either spending more or taxing more.

I have heard main stream media trying to discredit the TEA party by saying, "It actually is not like the Boston Tea Party at all."
 
Back
Top