Charlie Hebdo: Fourth Estate challenged

Opinion by Anna van Densky

The testimony of Jeannette Bougrab – Charlie Hebdo's slain editor Stephane Charbonnier's (Charb's) companion – has stirred a debate on security regarding journalists involved in challenging projects. Charbonnier was certain that he would be assassinated, but preferred "to die on his feet, than to live on his knees". However, his tragic departure, along with his devoted colleagues, raises concerns beyond the grief about the future of the high-risk journalistic profession. If society continues to fail to protect human beings exercising freedom of expression, the 'Fourth Estate' will face an imminent decline.

The massacre of Charlie Hebdo's editorial team in Paris is comparable with the assassination of Dutch documentary film director Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam in 2004, which came as a shock not only to the broader public, but to the journalistic community itself, which has since hoped to be backed by police and the secret services, unfortunately in vain. The murder of two Parisian policemen, who attempted to prevent the crime, has only added to the feeling of despair and fragility, discouraging those undertaking dangerous missions to confront the authorities.

Next to these losses, what happened to the notorious Danish Muhammad cartoonist of Jyllands Posten, Kurt Westergaard, is less dramatic, although one can still wonder how he keeps going after a frenzied intruder managed to enter his house in spite of police 24/7 surveillance. Was this unwelcome visit possible to avoid? Reportedly, afterwards the police redressed the cartoonist's life protection, but are these shocks necessary to convince the guards of law and order of the gravity of the situation and the danger of the threats posed?

It seems that the principle of tragic humanism is still valid in the case of the preservation of press freedom, meaning in Terry Eagleton's terms that the flourishing of humanity is possible, but only if confronted with the worst.

However the worst, namely these sacrifices, were not necessary - as Jeannette Bougrab stated, they were the consequences of the inadequacy of security measures, or in other words an underestimation of the threats posed to the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists.

The whole of Europe, as much as French society, ardently supports the idea of freedom of the press – in the case of criticism of Islam, it reads as a modern version of heresy, where a challenger confronts a dogmatist, creating a competition of opinions that is so vital for the development of society as a whole. But how to function if a challenger, as much as his predecessors – the heretics in the Middle Ages - faces the ultimate penalty in a backlash from his opponent?

Remarkably, humanity has not changed a lot in this respect, as criticism has always been a perilous activity, as far as it can be traced: John the Baptist (a prophet both in Christianity and Islam) paid with his life for criticizing the mores of King Herod – authority did not appreciate his freedom of speech, but grateful humanity is still admiring the masterpieces of artistic genius that depict John the Baptist's head on a lamb's meat platter.

However, the times of sacrificing people has passed. How can professionals be attracted to mass media to challenge authorities – political, ideological or religious – without the proper backing of the state? The question is still awaiting an answer… #jesuischarlie.

Share this article: