Lyles: Journalists need to show self-discipline, respect

First, let me state the disclaimer. The murderous attacks in Paris that killed staff members from the French magazine Charlie Hebdo were wrong, unacceptable, heinous, outrageous and inexcusable. That said, however, the media frenzy following the incident has missed the most important point.

Most media outrage has focused on the attacks as an assault on free speech. The underlying assumption to this line of thought is that all free speech is good and that free speech should be a universal, super-ordinate priority. Woe be to anyone who thinks otherwise. But let’s get real.

Free speech doesn’t exist anywhere in the world. Many of those decrying the Paris attacks as an attack on free speech are simultaneously stifling free speech and free expression throughout the world, including here in the United States. It is a felony to make a verbal or written terrorist threat in America. It is also against the law to say certain things in the workplace, on broadcast TV or radio. You can’t joke about bombs or hijacking in an airport. People are losing their jobs for things they’ve said or for taking certain stands on political issues. Facts like these make any argument for or against free speech obsolete from the beginning. The only legitimate focus of discussion is about where to set the boundaries—a reality most people are missing.

Another major problem with the media outrage about the Paris attacks is that most of the dialog presupposes that all journalists are noble and that anything written under the guise of journalism is sacrosanct. Neither is true. Some journalists are nothing more than bullies with no standards of ethical behavior. They hide behind the free speech banner to demean, belittle and debase those with whom they disagree. Journalistic bullying, even if carried out under the pretext of satire, is more of a threat to free speech than are terrorist attacks. Charlie Hebdo was one of the biggest bullies on the block.

Standards that guide journalism today are woefully inadequate. Publications such as The Associated Press Style Manual go to great lengths to prescribe the proper use of punctuation, or how to use gender-neutral pronouns or properly refer to illegal immigrants or other classes of people. But it fails to provide meaningful guidelines for the respectful treatment of individuals — especially iconic religious personages.

In recent years journalistic bullies have escaped unscathed from debasing Jesus, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Billy Graham, and many others because their followers are inclined to turn the other cheek. But this doesn’t make it right to declare open season on Muhammad through ridicule. Which is the greater wrong? To belittle and ridicule someone whose ideas with which you disagree? Or to respond in force to bring an end to the ridicule?

Many journalists cry foul when the power of the pen is overtaken by the power of the sword. But when the power of the pen is misused, from whence will the proper boundaries be restored? Legitimate debate and discussion should be protected. But if journalists fail in their responsibility to respect all people — including those with whom they disagree — they cannot expect to find themselves exempt from consequences.

Our highest priority should not be free speech. It should be showing respect — for all. Within the boundaries of respect we should encourage the free expression of ideas, and debate that furthers the positive interests of humankind. We can disagree without belittling others or their beliefs.

Until journalists impose proper self-discipline and treat others with respect, we’ll continue to see more incidents like the attacks on Charlie Hebdo.