Slashdot Mirror
Google Fund To Pay For 1 Million Copies of Charlie Hebdo
BarbaraHudson writes The Register is reporting that money set aside from a deal with France's publishers is going to pay for the printing of 1 million copies of next weeks' Charlie Hebdo, "Eight of the 12 people killed were journalists attending an editorial meeting, however, a senior editor and the magazine's chief executive were in London at the time of the attack. They have vowed to do a massive 1 million copy print run next week – Charlie Hebdo's circulation is normally around 60k. The cash will come from €60m fund (€20m per year over three years) that supports digital publishing innovation. The fund was set up in 2013 following negotiations between Google and the French government as a remedy to demands from European publishers that Google pay for displaying news snippets in its search results.
OK, so how do I get a copy as I'm outside France? Time to prove that the pen is mightier than the AK-47.
I vote for a cartoon of Mohammed and his six-year-old bride Aisha on the front cover.
And a few Jesus & Moses gags inside for balance.
I'm left wondering if the people behind the attacks will try to get some of their more brain-damaged followers to believe that google is now a legit target, even though google had no say in how these funds were to be used.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Will it have a caricature of Muhammad?
That's what needs to happen, millions and millions of Muhammad cartoons all over the World.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
a senior editor and the magazine's chief executive were in London at the time of the attack.
They'll continue on, which is more than most people would have done in their situation. As for the fund, I would think that using some of google's money for this is a good thing (and maybe something they wouldn't have done voluntarily). Charlie Hebdo, like most papers, survives on advertising, and at least some advertisers are going to be relucttant (to say the least) to advertise with them given recent events. I doubt very much that they're "swimming in money."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They didn't run any ads. Freedom is difficult when you depend of large companies.
Google's giving them $300K, but the government is giving them $1.2M.
While freedom of speech is a law that needs to be upheld, how many people would be happy with the government (or google?) giving an organization like stormfront a million dollars to publish pictures of Obama with a tail and a banana in one hand?
Charlie Hebdo is a cultural icon in France. Besides that, if you don't follow french politics/discourse you won't get most of their jokes. Here's an interview with R. Crumb which puts some perspective on the issue: http://observer.com/2015/01/le...
the gist of it:
Q: These guys were not trying not to offend, and that’s what an American media-conditioned mind cannot understand. The idea that yes, you offend those who abuse power.
A: [Laughs.] No, they can’t.
Google isn't trying to do anything. The money comes from France's publishers fund, and it's irrelevant to mention the source of that money. Using the source of the source of the money you'd get the headline "AdWords customers To Pay For...", and so on.
Charlie Hebdo, like most papers, survives on advertising
Wrong. Charlie Hebdo is one of the rare newspapers in France (another example is le Canard Enchaîné) with zero ads, and which survive only from their readership.
Charlie is not hateful a single bit, they're simply very offensive, which is different; but one may be mistaken anout it when one happens to be on the receiving end of their offensiveness. Besides, they don't switch targets over (long periods of) time: they are equally offsensive to all targets, without a discernable bias except based on what the current news gave them as the week's targets (side note: the remaining staff held an editorial meeting on Friday for next wednesday's issue. In Liberation's report of the meeting was this gem: one of the Charlie staff said "so, let's make this issue. What do we put in it?" to which another one answered "Dunno... what's in the news right now?" -- typical Charlie humor, like it or not).
It's about the welfare-stereotype. Actuallly a good example of how how Charlie works. They use what's in the news and transform it into a tasteless absurdity.
See here... http://www.quora.com/What-was-...
Insulting the prophet does not carry the death sentence as during his life he was insulted, and worse. These attackers had Islamic precedent to draw from and had they looked it up, would not use the cartoons as justification. I submit to you that there is another reason behind this: http://www.independent.co.uk/v... There is no justification for the murders, but we can grasp to understand the underlying issues.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
I thought Print was dead...