March 28, 2024

‘Je suis Charlie’ —well — sort of

Over the past two weeks, many of my friends outside the journalism world have asked me if I identify, in any way, with the victims of the Jan. 7 attack on the French satire newspaper, Charlie Hebdo.

Yes, and no.

It’s easy to sympathize with the victims and their families on a human level, and to feel the anger and sadness one would expect with such an attack. I identify with nearly everyone in the print, journalism and news businesses on at least a small scale, as we all face some of the same challenges.

However, the heavy political satire that is the world of Charlie Hebdo is very far removed from the cornfields of central Iowa. It’s not that either international political cartoons or rural American journalism is better, or that one is tougher or easier.

I don’t mean to sound like I would distance myself from anyone’s art. However, there is more than one type of journalism world.

A quick Internet search will field millions of comments about a major TV network and its news coverage. These are comments about large organizations, who have oceans and continents and language barriers between correspondents — and who rely on technology a great deal.

A rural Iowa newspaper needs technology as well. However, it also needs local knowledge, and relationships with schools and government officials and landowners and businesses of many sizes. A political newspaper, based in Paris, must have challenges that would be new to any of us.

It must take a special type of courage to work in a building that could have suffered an attack any day since the magazine set up shop in 1970.

It’s easy to relate to the Charlie Hebdo staff as people, and wonder what they are going through now. I try to put myself in their shoes, but that’s tough without knowing how those folks approached life before all this happened.

The Onion is one of the most popular satire publications in the U.S., and their politics are far more playful.

Its site has great visual headlines that poke fun at our antiquated two-party system, such as “Desperate GOP spotted in South Dakota trying to build Keystone Pipeline themselves” or “Biden tossed out of car passing by White House.” While some of The Onion’s jokes make people angry (especially if they aren’t quickly recognized as satire), the site hasn’t seemed to stir the wrath of well-armed international extremists.

Folks at TV programs like “The Daily Show” or “South Park” might receive threats, but video doesn’t tend to linger like print. I wonder how many intense Charlie Hedbo images have caught the eye of casual passer-by at a Paris café, who hadn’t even bought a paper.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only restricts which laws can be passed that might restrict free speech. The amendment doesn’t protect speech from criticism, and everyone knows their words and images might prompt others to action.

Through the years, I’ve met plenty of folks who say things to the effect of local papers being just as sensationalistic and muckraking as the big TV networks. While it’s natural for a community journalist to refute such criticism, it’s also a natural part of the process to try and producing interesting content and package it in a way that will grab eyes and ears.

Most of us try to strike a balance between captivation and driving home an accurate, fair and compelling message from the subjects of our stories. Charlie Hebdo was able to walk that thin line for about 45 years.

It’s easy to picture what a perfect balance would look like, but it’s tough to picture everything its staff is going through this month.

Contact Jason W. Brooks at 641-792-3121 ext. 6532 or jbrooks@newtondailynews.com