快捷搜索: 纽约时报  疫情  抗疫  经济学人  中国  特朗普 

《纽约时报》不登查理漫画是懦弱吗?

A Close Call on Publication of Charlie Hebdo Cartoons
《纽约时报》不登查理漫画是懦弱吗?

Was The Times cowardly and lacking in journalistic solidarity when it decided not to publish the images from the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo that precipitated the execution of French journalists?

《纽约时报》是因为懦弱又缺乏新闻业的团结一心精神而决定不刊登引发法国记者被杀害的法国讽刺报纸《查理周报》的漫画的吗?

Some readers I’ve heard from certainly think so. Evan Levine of New York City wrote: “I just wanted to register my extreme disappointment at what can only be described as a dereliction of leadership and responsibility by the New York Times in deciding not to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons after today’s massacre.”

一些联络到我的读者无疑是这样认为的。纽约市读者埃文·莱文(Evan Levine)写道:“我就是想对《纽约时报》在今日的大屠杀后决定不刊登《查理周报》的漫画表达极度失望——这个决定只能被形容为毫无担当、缺乏责任感。”

Todd Stuart of Key West, Fla., expressed the same view: “I hope the public editor looks into the incredibly cowardly decision of the NYT not to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. I can’t think of anything more important than major papers like the NYT standing up for the most basic principles of freedom.”

佛罗里达州基韦斯特的读者托德·斯图尔特(Todd Stuart)表达了同样的观点:“我希望公众编辑能追究《纽约时报》不刊登《查理周报》漫画这个懦弱到不可思议的决定。我想象不到有比像《纽约时报》这样重量级的报纸挺身捍卫自由的最基本原则更重要的事了。”

And many outside commenters and press critics agreed. Jeff Jarvis of City University of New York wrote: “If you’re the paper of record, if you’re the highest exemplar of American journalism, if you expect others to stand by your journalists when they are threatened, if you respect your audience to make up its own mind, then dammit stand by Charlie Hebdo and inform your public. Run the cartoons.”

很多外围的评论者和媒体批评人士也同意以上看法。纽约城市大学(City University of New York)的杰夫·贾维斯(Jeff Jarvis)写道:如果你是那份权威大报,如果你是美国新闻准则的最高代表,如果你指望你自己的记者遭到威胁时,其他人能站出来支持他们,如果你尊重你的读者自己作出是非判断,那见鬼,你就该力挺《查理周报》,告知你的受众。刊发他们的漫画。”

I talked to the executive editor, Dean Baquet, on Thursday morning about his decision not to show the images of the prophet Muhammad – a position that was taken by The Washington Post (on its news pages), The Associated Press, CNN and many other American news organizations. BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post were among those that did publish the cartoons.

纽约时报中英文网 http://www.qqenglish.com/

星期四上午,我与本报主编迪安·巴奎(Dean Baquet)谈论了他不刊发先知穆罕默德形象的决定——《华盛顿邮报》(The Washington Post)(其新闻版)、美联社(The Associated Press)、CNN和很多其他的美国新闻机构都采取了此种立场。BuzzFeed和赫芬顿邮报(Huffington Post)(美国两家关注度非常高的新闻时事网站——译注)是刊登了漫画的其中两家媒体。

The Washington Post’s editorial page published a single image of a Charlie Hebdo cover on its printed Op-Ed page with Charles Lane’s column; that decision was made by the editorial page editor, not the executive editor of the paper, who presides over the news content. The executive editor, Martin Baron, told the Post’s media reporter Paul Farhi that the paper doesn’t publish material “that is pointedly, deliberately, or needlessly offensive to members of religious groups.”

《华盛顿邮报》社论版在其纸质评论版配以查尔斯·莱恩(Charles Lane)的专栏文章刊登了一张《查理周报》封面的图片;此决定由评论版主编作出,而非由主持新闻报道内容的报纸执行主编拍板。该报执行主编马丁·巴朗(Martin Baron)告诉邮报媒体记者保罗·法尔希(Paul Farhi),该报不刊登“针对性地、刻意地、没有必要地侮辱宗教族群成员”的内容。

A number of European newspapers did publish the images, often on their front pages or prominently on their websites.

多家欧洲的报纸确实都刊登了那些图片,时常是在头版或它们网站的显著位置上。

I found it interesting that at least one outspoken champion of free expression, Glenn Greenwald, questioned the solidarity angle, tweeting: “When did it become true that to defend someone’s free speech rights, one has to publish & even embrace their ideas? That apply in all cases?”

让我觉得很有意思的是,至少有一位敢言的言论自由捍卫者,格伦·格林沃尔德(Glenn Greenwald)(此人是美国记者、律师、专栏作家,曾任职于英国卫报[The Guardian],报道了斯诺登“棱镜门”事件——编注),对团结视角提出了质疑,发布Twitter发文说:“从什么时候开始,捍卫某人的言论自由权利就必须刊发且甚至支持他们的观点了?这在所有情况下都适用?”

纽约时报中英文网 http://www.qqenglish.com

And even many people who were horrified by the attack have become troubled by the embrace of a paper they believe crossed the line into bigotry.

甚至很多被是次袭击震惊了的人,都为支持一份他们认为已经越界至偏执范畴的报纸而困扰。

Mr. 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.

巴奎告诉我,他以确信时报应该刊发那些图片的看法开始了他的周三,既因为它们的新闻价值,又出于一种与被杀记者及言论自由的权利站在同一条战线上的精神。

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.

他说,他花了“约半天时间”考虑这个问题,寻求高级编辑们的看法,并求助了一些时报国际分社的记者和编辑。他告诉我说,他们告诉他,如果时报转载那些图片,他们不会感到受到威胁,但他仍为员工人身安全忧心。

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

“我听取了许多意见,我两次改变了主意,”他说。“这个决定还是得由我一个人来做。”

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.”

他说,最后,他决定不刊发,因为他必须首要考虑时报读者的感情,尤其是其穆斯林读者。对他们很多人来说,他说道,对先知穆罕默德形象的描绘就是渎神之举;那些意在讽刺的描绘就更是如此了。“我们有一个长久以来坚守的、且于我们有益的准则:那就是,无端的侮辱和讽刺艺术之间是有界限的。大部分这些漫画都是无端的侮辱。”

“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.

“什么时候新闻价值能凌驾于我们的准则之上?”巴奎问道。“你将不得不展示”来自那份报纸的“最具煽动性的图片”;这是他认为不可接受的。

I asked Mr. Baquet about a different approach — something much more moderate, along the lines of what the Post’s Op-Ed page did in print.

我就一种不同的方式——一种更为温和的方式,像邮报评论版在其纸质版所采取的那种方式那样——询问了巴奎的看法。

网站部分信息来源于自互联网和网友上传,只为方便大家查询浏览,请自行核对信息的真实情况,本站将不承担任何责任!

您可以还会对下面的文章感兴趣:

  • 36小时环游新加坡
  • 中国颁布新规,限制未成年人玩游戏
  • 辞掉工作、花了57天,他们找回了走失的狗
  • 改善健康也许很简单:每天少吃300卡
  • 从《老友记》到《早间新闻》,詹妮弗·安妮斯顿的新旅程
  • 最新评论

    留言与评论(共有 条评论)
       
    验证码: