COMMENT: Wake-up call for media

THE tragic events of January 7 2015 in Paris perhaps require of us to have a far deeper debate and discussion about what is at issue here than some, if not most, editorial comments would suggest.

The immediate and default explanation of media, particularly the Western or West-aligned media, is that this is a sign of a rise in intolerance to differing views and an attack on media freedoms and freedom of expression. That view may well be right.

What if there is something much deeper than this view of the dynamics of this incident? What if this also reflects the need to debate where media freedom and freedom of expression starts and ends? Where do we draw the line? Who decides where these lines are? What about the grey parts of these lines?

What if one argues that this also challenges the media to have a rigorous editorial debate and introspection about the bigotry, media extremism, rights violations, prejudice, racism, sexism, hate speech and incitement, disrespect and poor editorial judgement that masquerades as journalism and media freedoms.

The media needs to take a long hard look at its practices and ask some tough questions. For example, if we are to mock, ridicule and offend religions, do we mock all of them or do we only mock others' religions and not our own? Or do we mock the small ones or the ones we do not like?

If we mock politicians, do we mock all or just the ones from the right but not the left, from the West or East or from the developing world. If you mock and offend followers of Prophet Muhammad, can we also mock and offend followers of Jesus Christ, as an example?

Can a pattern of absolute impartiality and fairness in our stance emerge when one looks at our history? When does the right not to be offended and insulted and have your rights violated begin? Or is there such a thing?

How do media houses balance these? Can one really have absolute media freedoms and freedom of expression or should such reference always be accompanied by the obligations that come with such rights?

These questions may well be irrelevant at this stage or if the view being perpetuated is that the problem is with the rest of "them" who don't understand, accept or tolerate our right to our views or expression.

If we accept that we have some questions to ask of ourselves as the media then I would suggest this is perhaps a far more worthwhile exercise to have.

Reducing this tragic incident to intolerance to different views and an attack of media freedoms probably hides a bigger elephant in the room. It will prevent the media from using this incident to create a legacy for the fallen Charlie Hebdo colleagues by transforming and emerging from such an adversity stronger and better.

• Roberto Cassaredi, By e-mail