Article content continued

The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was the target of an horrific massacre last week, punishment for the “crime” of publishing caricatures of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. The attackers were even overheard shouting “we have avenged the prophet!”

Many have suggested that Charlie Hebdo was being reckless, inflammatory, even racist by publishing such images. There is an inherent arrogance in reaching and proclaiming such a conclusion without offering readers or viewers a chance to decide for themselves.

If we are to go down the path of victim blaming, then we especially need to understand what Charlie Hebdo was doing, and whether it was responsible. In that sense, the images are quite newsworthy. Yet, for the most part, they are absent from the coverage. The reasons why are rather nebulous.

For example, the Jan. 8 edition of the CBC’s The National featured its director of journalistic standards and practices explaining that its “respect for religious sensitivities” was behind the decision to not show those cartoons. Yet literally seconds before, Charlie Hebdo cartoons mocking Jesus and the Pope were shown on screen.

The CBC is far from alone in not showing the cartoons, but they are notable in terms of both their national prominence and their obligation to inform Canadians. Moreover, it is an illustrative example of the hypocrisy, doublespeak and shifting standards of much of the media.

If the CBC refrains from publishing offensive images in the name of “tolerance and respect,” as claimed, then why have they previously done the exact opposite?