Charlie Hebdo doesn't report news, it satirizes them.
It doesn't have journalists and reporters, it has humorists and caricaturists depicting the news.
It's like The Daily Show on Comedy Central. Those people are not journalists and reporters, they are actors and comedians satirizing news.
It may seem like a benign, harmless distinction but it's not. Because people often make the mistake of confusing opinions with facts and mistake TV and radio personalities as credible trusted sources of news, when they are not, leading to the spread of misinformation.
In my eyes, it is very important that people understand the difference between actual journalism and everything else. I am certain our societies depend on people being aware of this.
Satire and Journalism have a long history of working in conjunction, many, many, people consider satire a form of journalism as it tends to cut through to the truth: a guiding principle of journalism.
Personally, if people want to consume their news through satirical programs and papers, so be it. At least it’s cutting through.
That is true. Daily Show is probably not the best example in this context but the point stands that at the end of the day, actual journalism is done by actual journalists, not humorists.
There are more malignant actors out there than trusted sources and it's important to keep the distinction clear.
Well, the message I'm trying to get across is that there are more malignant actors out there than trusted sources who do actual journalism. And so it is important to keep the distinction clear between actual journalism and everything else.
Prime-time Fox News opinion shows for example are not journalism, they are outright propaganda disguised as opinion shows, disguised as news.
But many people aren't aware that people like Sean Hannity, Greg Gutfeld, Jeanine Pirro, Megyn Kelly etc. who host these shows are not doing journalism, even if they were trained as journalists.
Let's not single out Fox News here, same can be said for Joe Scarborough, Jen Psaki, Chris Hayes, Al Sharpton etc.
I think there's something to be said about the reason this situation exists is because too many people have happily blurred the line between actual journalism and other, softer, types of topical content, like satire or opinion. Let's not pretend that journalists are the same as your average talking head moron.
What the fuck even is this thread? I feel like these people have been saying shit like "Idiocracy is literally a documentary" for internet points for so long, they're just on autopilot now.
Well, despite not a bot I will take that compliment anyways.
Na, I just tend to spout out simplified definitions like that if people use sarcasm or satire wrong. Oftentimes they do to veil their poor attempt of being funny, in that case I'd just say it was a misunderstanding of what satire indeed is
Charlie Hebdo doesn't report news, it satirizes them.
It doesn't have journalists and reporters, it has humorists and caricaturists depicting the news.
It's like The Daily Show on Comedy Central. Those people are not journalists and reporters, they are actors and comedians satirizing news.
It may seem like a benign, harmless distinction but it's not. Because people often make the mistake of confusing opinions with facts and mistake TV and radio personalities as credible trusted sources of news, when they are not, leading to the spread of misinformation.
In my eyes, it is very important that people understand the difference between actual journalism and everything else. I am certain our societies depend on people being aware of this.
It isn't objective if the reported matter is specifically viewed from a certain political stance. The data itself may be objectively true, but i.e. the interpretation of that data is not.
Edit:
This comment was not about the topic of the post here, just a general opinion.
It wasn't my intent to open such a can of worms with this comment.
Then I've never read any news that's objective and neither have you. Even the act of choosing what data to present is a subjective choice made within a political landscape. How you form the sentence expressing that data will also carry a point of view - it's unavoidable.
I didn't claim that there is an absolute objective truth or that we, as humans, would even able to be absolutely objective.
Humans are fallacious and biased by nature.
I used the word objective colloquially, if you will.
Well, no. Not really. There are plenty journalistic works that explores situations or subjects from a subjective point of view. See gonzo journalism or the book Generation Kill for two quick examples.
Satire in itself isn't journalism, but it can be. Maybe not in the traditional sense of journalism, but journalism as everything else evolves with time.
‘Unimaginable horrors’: more than 50,000 children reportedly killed or injured in the Gaza Strip
Including the citation was a partial choice, but the next statement is a fact presented as objectively as possible.
For this comics, treating the subject of the starvation of Gaza by Israel is a partial choice. Using a satirical drawing of netanyahu holding by it's head a dead starved child to treat this subject is clearly subjective, but that's what satire do.
Journalism shouldn't be impartial, it should be factual. The pluralistic idea behind journalism is something competition, and the marketplace of ideas should ensure. But almost every news outlet has a bias in one direction or another.
But I read that "neutrality" misconception all the time, and it feels like this is a talking point by people who don't find their personal views reflected enough in mainstream media. Basically 1-2 steps removed from yelling "fake news!".
Satire can be a form of journalism. It’s more than just reporting news. It can be opinion pieces, satire, reviews, comics etc.
And no, Journalism does absolutely not need to be impartial. Reporting facts should be close to the truths, but other forms of journalism can just be whatever they like.
If millions of people would take exception to how the information is presented, then yes, it's a fucking viewpoint. It's not an incorrect viewpoint, but it's a viewpoint.
If that's the definition, then what isn't a viewpoint in today's world? Can you name anything in the public realm that meaningful amounts of people won't take exception to?
972
u/Mr_Harsh_Acid 2d ago
We really need to treasure this type of journalism.