French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is generating controversy after it published in its Sept. 9 issue a series of caricatures depicting the three-year-old boy who washed up on the shore of a Turkish beach to criticize the European Union’s response to the unfolding migrant crisis.

The Daily Orange spoke to Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech and an associate professor of newspaper and online journalism at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, and Bill Jasso, a professor of practice in public relations at Newhouse, about the legitimacy of the magazine’s decision to publish the cartoons.

The Daily Orange: What was your feeling when you saw the cartoons?

Roy Gutterman: I saw the cartoon and it was a statement. It was a very bold statement about the very dramatic, emotional situation…I don’t think the cartoon mocks migrants. I think the targets of the commentary are Western European governments. I don’t see that as an attack on any individual faith or nationality or ethnicity.

Bill Jasso: We seem to be breeding an environment of meanness. It’s okay to be mean and nasty in these days all in the name of freedom of speech…I appreciate the satire. I guess I am just not an aficionado of cheap satire. I enjoy intelligence over meanness. Being mean is easy. Satirizing intelligently is hard work. These guys took the easy way out.

The D.O.: The original picture of the dead boy generated a lot of attention to the ongoing migration crisis in Europe. Meanwhile the caricatures were intended to criticize EU’s response to the problem. What differentiates between the photograph and those cartoons?

R.G.: The picture tells the story as the way it is. There is nothing but image and that’s what the news photography does. The caricature and the cartoon make a comment on the tragic photo and it makes a very dramatic satirical commentary on the tragic situation. 

B.J.: Photography has had a long history in mobilizing and galvanizing people in this country and around the world. Cartoons are different. Cartoons are cheap shots.

The D.O.: Why do you think Charlie Hebdo is continuing to publish cartoons like those knowing that the publication stirs up controversy?

R.G.: It has gotten a long history of publishing satirical and offensive content. That’s what its role is. And it says things about contemporary issues in ways that offend a lot of people but they say things that nobody else can say and it serves an important role.

B.J.: Because that’s the only way they can gather attention. I believe that Charlie Hebdo would yell fire in a room full of burned victims just because they can. That does not make it right.

The D.O.: In the aftermath of the terrorist attack against the magazine in January, people chanted the slogan “Je Suis Charlie (I am Charlie)” in support of freedom of expression. Do you think there is any sense of hypocrisy among the public when it comes to whom to satirize?

R.G.: I mean, it raises the question of who’s making the decision and who’s being offended because when it offends one person it’s not necessarily going to offend somebody else, and if there is content you don’t like or it offends you, don’t view it.

B.J.: Do I defend atrocities committed to the staff of Charlie Hebdo? Terrorists? Absolutely and positively not. Nothing, nothing justifies that kind of activity. Charlie Hebdo could not have been surprised by that attack.

The D.O.: What do you make of this entire incident from your First Amendment and communication law background?

R.G.: This is an example of why in the United States we have the First Amendment. There have been some cases that went all the way up to the Supreme Court that defended the right to satirize.

Published on September 21, 2015 at 11:00 pm

Contact Satoshi: ssugiyam@syr.edu | @SatoshiJournal