Jesus, you’d hope that the Telegraph obits would get this right

In 1960 he became one of the founders of Hara-Kiri, a satirical magazine which, after it was banned by president Charles de Gaulle in 1970, simply changed its name to Charlie Hebdo and appeared with the same cover the following week.

Come on now, an obit is, in this secular age, one of the things that is supposed to be sacred:

In 1969, the Hara-Kiri team decided to produce a weekly publication – on top of the existing monthly magazine – which would focus more on current affairs. This was launched in February as Hara-Kiri Hebdo and renamed L’Hebdo Hara-Kiri in May of the same year.[citation needed] (‘Hebdo’ is short for ‘hebdomadaire’ – ‘weekly’)

In November 1970, the former French president Charles de Gaulle died in his home village of Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, eight days after a disaster in a nightclub, the Club Cinq-Sept fire caused the death of 146 people. The magazine released a cover spoofing the popular press’s coverage of this disaster, headlined “Tragic Ball at Colombey, one dead.”[6] As a result, the journal was once more banned, this time by the Minister of the Interior.

In order to sidestep the ban, the team decided to change its title, and used Charlie Hebdo.

Seriously, not even checking Wikipedia these days? Tom will be spinning in that grave that holds the stalwart of the Telegraph’s subs bench of old and The Great Redacto, sometime reader here and Telegraph colleague on that bench will be shouting about it for us too no doubt.

12 thoughts on “Jesus, you’d hope that the Telegraph obits would get this right”

  1. I’m sure the usual crowd of nutters will show up in the comments to tell you how much less reliable wiki is than the Torygraph. Or is that only when they don’t like the info that[‘s in wiki?

  2. So, a Socialist President banned a magazine.

    And now another Socialist President says the same magazine was ‘defending free speech’.

    Yes, it was. Against Islamic nutters and its own government.

  3. Or is that only when they don’t like the info that[‘s in wiki?

    No, wiki is unreliable on matters of controversy.

    If you want to know what happened in the 7th episode of the 4th season of some US TV series, it is utterly fantastic.

    On matters where there are people with agendas to push, it is indicative.

    Where there is actual controversy, it can be assumed to reflect one, and only one, side of that controversy. Although this can switch several times during a day.

  4. I’m sure the usual crowd of nutters will show up in the comments to tell you how much less reliable wiki is than the Torygraph.

    Oh come on.

    That is obviously not the real William Connelly.

    That would be like Gary Glitter showing up to harangue people about the customer service at PC World.

  5. William

    Whatever the nature of your contributions to Wiki, I certainly wouldn’t personally ever rely on the Telegraph?

    As others have expressed far more eloquently in the past, the primary objective of newspaper proprietors is to sell newspapers, not report news.

    Re Wiki, SE nails it. Uncontroversial – yes, I’ll probably take it (with a second check). Controversial subject – forget it, you might as well give me a comic to read.

    Though I can’t help thinking Steve’s instinct may be right?

  6. “I’m sure the usual crowd of nutters will show up in the comments to tell you how much less reliable wiki is than the Torygraph. Or is that only when they don’t like the info that[‘s in wiki?”

    Are you still banned from Wikipedia, William? Or perhaps have ArbCom relented, and you’re back, fiddling away. A smear here, a smear there. There’s a war to be won.

    Apart from failing to get elected (over and over again) as a Green Party councillor, that’s really your only claim to fame, isn’t it?

    Rob – ha ha.

  7. ‘In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges’

    Oh dear, William, you have been a naughty little liar, haven’t you? And a teensy bit juvenile, too?

    Arf.

  8. Interested – if I had known there was likely to be another Steve on the internet, I’d have chosen a more unique name, like “The Real Steve”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *