In Western countries, freedom of the press is taken for granted.
But an attack Wednesday that left 10 journalists and two police dead in the offices of a Parisian satirical magazine highlights just how shaky a concept it is.
We’re not suggesting that such an attack is likely to occur at a media outlet in the Okanagan. For one thing, it seems the Paris attack was the work of terrorists attacking the paper in retaliation for its caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad, which have frequently drawn condemnation from Muslims — Islam forbids idolization of people, especially Mohammed, the prophet of the Muslim faith.
Attacks on the media come from all levels — it seems there is always someone who wants to prevent the media from speaking out.
One of the most important roles of the media in a free society is that of a watchdog, to keep an eye on the doings of those in positions of power or, as the saying goes, comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
In general, that means that if you are doing your job well as a journalist, someone is always going to be ticked off with you. What we are talking about, though, goes farther than just the press speaking out. Taking away or limiting freedom of the media is just one step away from taking away freedom of speech, which, with variations, is considered a fundamental liberty throughout Western democracies.
The attack on Charlie Hebdo is more than an attack on a single media outlet. It is an attack on the barrier — paper-thin, inconsistent and wavering though it might be — that separates our societies from becoming dictatorships. One line from Gérard Biard, the editor-in-chief at Charlie Hebdo, who was away from the office when the attack occurred, sums up our feeling.
“I don’t understand how people can attack a newspaper with heavy weapons. A newspaper is not a weapon of war.”
At its best, a newspaper is a weapon of freedom. And that scares some people more than any bullet.
