Offensive
The AP’s excuse for not distributing the Muslim cartoons keeps rolling around in my head. As quoted in Howie Kurtz’ columnn today:
Speaking by phone, AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll told The Chronicle, ‘The cartoons didn’t meet our long-held standards for not moving offensive content. The AP is not just an indiscriminate warehouse for information. We put a lot of care into what we put on the wire.’
I understand what she is trying to say. But that is an absurd standard they will live to regret. The news is often offensive. Murder is offensive. War is offensive. There are no end of images, in photos and words, that offend in the news — and often that is why they are news. If the news becomes only that which is offensive to no one, we end up with what some people have long wanted: Just good news. But that is not our job. Neither is it an editor’s job to protect me from what may be offensive but what I do, in fact, want to know. The public should be able to judge on their own whether these cartoons are, indeed, offensive and worth rioting and killing over (a rhetorical question). I don’t need an editor to make that judgment for me, thank you.
: A comment asks whether it would be different if an editor said he or she were not running the images out of fear for staff and family. Yes. That would, at least, be honest. It would be another horrible precedent — namely, that you can intimidate us.
: Kurtz also quotes Andrew Sullivan’s cogent analysis of offense for Time:
Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They’re blasphemy — the mother of all offenses. That’s because Islam forbids any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. Should non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a religion without honoring its taboos. I eat pork, and I’m not an anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don’t expect atheists to genuflect before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a political point, then the call is an easy one. Freedom means learning to deal with being offended.Blasphemy, after all, is commonplace in the West. In America, Christians have become accustomed to artists’ offending their religious symbols. They can protest, and cut off public funding — but the right of the individual to say or depict offensive messages or symbols is not really in dispute. Blasphemy, moreover, is common in the Muslim world, and sanctioned by Arab governments. The Arab media run cartoons depicting Jews and the symbols of the Jewish faith with imagery indistinguishable from that used in the Third Reich. But I have yet to see Jews or Israelis threaten the lives of Muslims because of it.
Tags: Howard_Stern, Media
February 8th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
If an editor comes out and says he’s not publishing the cartoons because he’s scared for the safety of himself and his employees, is that an acceptable excuse?
February 8th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Just when I was starting to feel sorry for newspapers, they proved that they were completely irrelevant captive creatures of corporate decisionmaking and doublespeak.
Where is the newspaper editor like Mencken who would put these on his front page and stand up for freedom of the press? In the grave like Mencken, I guess.
Bye-bye newspapers. In your most crucial hour, you were tested and found wanting.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
[...] BuzzMachine via Howard Kurtz] Posted on Feb 8th, 2006 @ 12:29 in Comical Schtuff | Print No Comments» [...]
February 8th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
WIll you be posting the cartoons on Buzzmachine?
February 8th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Last I heard sedition, advocating the overthrow of the government etc. WAS and IS against the law….no ifs, ands or buts.
Has there been announcement of the arrest of these demonstrators?
“Note the black flag of Islam, the battle-flag of jihad, flying over the White House on the placard at left” as well as the words!
This took place at ground zero! I rarely buy newspapers. Have they been carrying this atrocity?
February 8th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
If an editor comes out and says he’s not publishing the cartoons because he’s scared for the safety of himself and his employees, is that an acceptable excuse?
Hell no.
The sniveling burqa clad editors at the NYT’s, CNN and WaPo cowering under their desks have surrendered their right of free speech to the Islamofascists. How the hell can you provide commentary on cartoons that you refuse to show as context- a necessary service to the audience so they can arrive at an informed opinion?
The hypocrisy is that the MSM have had no hesitation showing content that has offended Jews and Christians for decades. Their pretense that they are motivated by “sensitivity” is amusing. Islam’s insults daily the Jewish religion in newspapers and textbooks. I’ve seen a vile cartoon in an Arab paper directed toward the Pope. The MSM could care less about that.
This cartoon episode has shown the MSM in our free society to be craven self-censoring hypocrits.
Bless the Danish and other Europeans newspapers for standing firm on the issue of free speech.
If fear of reprisals is motivating their silence then they are useless capitulators who need to be replaced by principled advocates of a free press.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Certainly newspapers don’t have to be afraid of carrying the picture of the demonstration at ground zero I gave the link to in the last post.
Are they even prominently carrying that one?
February 8th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
On a more practical note: If these images were more widely shown, maybe it wouldn’t have taken so long for somebody to notice little details such as, say, one of the “cartoons” actually being a bad photocopy of a French man at a pig-squealing contest.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
The NYT has a story about this issue illustrated by a photo of protestors (”Danish People not welcome here”) and another photo of that lovely work of art portraying the Virgin Mary with dung.
Not the Danish cartoons, of course.
Glenn Reynolds is right: “Once again, the message is that if you blow things up, or even look as if you might, we’ll be nice to you. And once again, I note that this is a very unwise message to send.”
February 8th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Another thought…..the best that the spineless sniveling MSM here can do is print stories of yet another newspaper in Europe courageously printing the cartoons in defense of free speech.
The stupid morons can’t even see the irony.
This cartoon episode now hastens the MSM’s decent into oblivion. Their silence is deafening.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Blogger with a link to the images:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.newspaperindex.com/blog/wp-images/the%2520prophet%2520drawing.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.newspaperindex.com/blog/&h=349&w=450&sz=34&tbnid=mEFsx4RTc_UAIM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=124&hl=en&start=19&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dprophet%2Bmohamed%2Bcartoon%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN
February 8th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
If we can publish cartoons ridiculing politicians and royalty, we should be allowed to publish cartoons ridiculing religious icons. After all, they are ridiculous in essence. Besides, Islamic law doesn’t apply to me (Thank goodness!)
February 8th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Is it offensive or is it Politically Incorrect?
My guess is that is it is the latter, and the news room has spent many years working to keep all that is politically incorrect out of their newspapers and publications.
So odds are the editor did not see the irony in her words.
Tom
February 8th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
You are right. Just good news is not our job either. That is why I dare to intrude here to invite you and your readers to come check out Orato , which aims to be the first news site exclusively devoted to citizen journalism in the first person voice. That is, stories which are told with the immediate and personal voices of eyewitnesses to major (or minor) events — from the London Subway bombings to day-to-day life in the streets of Baghdad. As the site prepares to launch, we are issuing a world-wide invitation to the online community to bring stories to Orato. This community is a source of tons of good stories that should have a bigger and global audience.
Starting today, we are also introducing what I would not-so-modestly call the world’s most innovative and unusual Classifieds section . Together with our citizen news site, our Classifieds reflect Orato’s vision to provide every person with an opportunity to be heard. And we want our Classifieds to be useful, unique, and fun.
As an introduction to the site, for a limited time, all ads are free.
So come to our site now and post an ad for free in any of our 12 categories. You ad will be good for 30 days and it can be regionalized so you have the chance to get in touch with people in your area – anywhere in the world.
I’m confident you’d like our ground-breaking proposal. After all, how many classifieds do you know that:
• Give you a minimum of 500 words to make your pitch?
• Allow you to announce your sex change, or confess to the world You Lied?
• Promote your demonstration or your garage sale?
• Track down fugitives from justice or find a long-lost relative?
• Get a date, or failing that, write a love letter to your pet turtle?
• Find a homeopath, an osteopath or a naturopath – all in the same place?
Also when you visit Orato, if you’re interested in being a contributor, please take the time to register to receive updates as we get closer to the launch of our first-person news site.
Raise your voice and speak to the world!
Paul Sullivan
Editor in Chief
February 8th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
My guess is that is it is the latter, and the news room has spent many years working to keep all that is politically incorrect out of their newspapers and publications. .
If only they had been consistent. The MSM have never minded printing images, positively reviewing books/movies and using satire found offensive by Jews and Christians. The difference is we don’t physically threaten the press in return.
They are craven cowardly hypocrits plain and simple.
Show the cartoons, Jeff.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
All media inplicitly supports the milieu it is embedded in. Whatever the criticism of an individual misdeed it is always taken as an example of a specific failure, not of a fundamental problem with the society.
Where are the followup images and videos from Abu Ghraib? Why don’t war pictures ever show the gory details? I can understand a newspaper being reluctant to show dismembered bodies while their subscribers are eating breakfast, but the web gives them the opportunity to supplement content with the proper warnings.
It is also important to notice that the cartoon issue is not really about freedom of the press, or expression, or hypocrisy, but that the outrage is a sign of the fundamental dislike of the policies of the west toward the middle east. This is a politically acceptable for the man in the street to express his dislike for the strong arm tactics being used by the US and its clients without the protesters running afoul of their own repressive regimes.
Back to addressing the underlying question again: “why do they hate us”.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
hey there, contrary to your position taken on the cartoon issue i agree with the AP in their decison not to publish them. Respecting another person’s religious beliefs has long being touted a fundamental principle by western leaders. So why the hypocrisy under the guise of freedom of speech. Why is it that a certain form of worship by certain groups almost, always seem to be promoted and if any one dares to even mention them in an unfavorable light it is as if he/she had committed the most vile of sins. Then to turn around and ridicule another set of people, like in your face/ and so what!!
the artificial reality that we live in continues to polarize our mindset.
Seeing everything from a biased perception is not good for you nor me. Remember newton’s law of motion here; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Open up your mind and look within!!!!!
February 8th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Yes, the spineless, terrorist asskissing, NYT, writes a story about moonbats protesting and uses a picture of a Mary made of elephant shit. I’d like to see a mohammed made of camel dung in their story, but the spineless MSM needs to show respect to muslims and be their little dhimmis. Islam dictates the rules of the Press in America.
February 8th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Jonah Goldberg’s comment draws an important distinction:
So where are the news editors? Taking their instructions from the PC Police, it appears.
February 8th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Anyone have a link to the offensive pics? I checked the above link and it came up with nada. So like most I still have no idea what the fuss is really about. Just seems like a whole bunch of Muslims went apeshit for no reason.
February 8th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Here you are kingdom. You’re welcome.
http://cagle.msnbc.msn.com/news/blog/bloggifs/Mohammed-cartoons.jpg
February 8th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Some discussion on the issue of the cartoon by Iranians (In English):
http://www.persianstudents.org/archives/002076.html
February 8th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Yes, ashok, it would matter if a paper would be honest and say they are afraid of intimidation or worse. I would be afraid! They would then be raising an important question: why on earth does not the West defend itself and protect its own institutions from such thugs? How did it come to this, that the Muslim Brotherhood could gin up a story and use it to cow governments and press institutions?
What’s next, burqas for women?
February 8th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Does freedom of the press mean you have to print something?
February 8th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Just a clarification: civic democracy calls for citizens to “tolerate” different beliefs. It does not require you to respect them in thought and deed. By tolerate, it means you don’t kill people because they have a different religion, or firebomb their place of worship.
But tolerance does allow you to speak and publish freely about your ideas regarding that religion, even if they are offensive to the adherents. Likewise, they can say terrible things about your religion, but cannot firebomb the church.
Tolerance isn’t respect. We have to tolerate people of differing political beliefs, but we don’t have to respect them.
February 8th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Freedom of the press means you should not be afraid to print something, in fear of a fatwa on your head.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Reading that the New York Times ran a photo of the Virgin Mary-dung artwork from the Brooklyn Museum again today inside the paper, while still refusing to run the Danish cartoons, shows they’re not really concerned about causing offense to religious groups they know won’t retaliate against either the editors inside the U.S. or against their employees working overseas, which for the big media outlets is probably the real cause for concern.
The Times, the AP and others with major foreign news bureaus should just come out and admit they’re afraid of their offices in Muslim countries being ransacked and burned and their reporters kidnapped or killed if they run the cartoons. Or simply offer their reporters a chance to be relocated from those areas and then run the cartoons after ther have a chance to get out of harm’s way. You might have to rely on other news services for a while to handle reporting in those areas, but it’s a better option than self-censorship due to intimidation, which will simply result in further actions to limit press freedoms, and not just by Muslim states, but by any dictatorship with something to hide.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:00 am
As a member of the MSM, a few comments:
Freedom of the press includes not only the right to freely publish, but also the right not to publish. Every news organization has its own standards, when those come in conflict with readers or viewers, the audience should pick up another newspaper or turn the channel.
The Muslim faith is the world’s largest religion. Like other religions (the far-right Christians, the Jewish homesteaders) there are Muslim extremists. Amid the din of protests over the cartoons are calls in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Europe by Muslim clerics calling for clearer heads.
Do we really want to get into a contest over which religion and nation is most tolerant? The Christian religion, which sparked the first Crusades against muslims? The Jewish which takes an eye-for-an-eye response to Palestinians?
This will not be the last time voices call for the ‘MSM’ to be tossed into the trash heap and bloggers take its place. But are we willing to trade a stratified and sometimes self-limiting professional media for the limitless cacophony of 29 million voice screaming for simultaneous attention?
Ed
February 9th, 2006 at 1:01 am
I find the cartoons offensive. I find the NYT,WaPo,LAT etc etc etc offensive. I can barely sit in my chair when I think about how many times the MSM published pictures of Abu Ghraib. The difference and reason they can afford to offend me, is they feel safe from the physical violence of millions, just like me.
They like to speak truth to power. Yawn.
Rather puts the lie to that old saw? Once again, they have become the story. Reminds me of Katrina. A really horrible thing happened but these truth to power people could only see the joy of blaming Bush. Not a one of them could manage to go less than 2 hours up the road and ask the Governor of LA why she didn’t just send all her own buses scattered all over Baton Rouge to New Orleans? So simple. The point? Every MSM had their cameras pointed, their political rants on the ready and totally ignored the real story of Katrina. To this day, many still do not understand the story was 2 hours away with someone playing politics.
The MSM became part of that story. They are now shouting with their Silence. They have a reason. They sit and ignore that Islam has some really nasty parts to it, if it is practiced by people that intend to rule. Since they can not say “You know all those women’s rights that we support and how horrible Bush wants to take them all away? Well, most of these people really do take them away. You know all those lawyers that Bush didn’t want to give those at Gitmo? You know how we call Bush a torturer? Well, these people won’t give you a lawyer but they will cut your heads off.”
They have put themselves into a box with their dishonesty portraying issues and now there is no place to hide. If they publish, these people might come and burn you out, blow you up, chop off your head. They are scared chitless. But they are also, now, a big part of our story.
I am offended by those cartoons. MSM did not mind stirring the hostility as long as that hostility would be aimed at our soldiers (Abu Ghraib) instead of their dear selves. How many times did they run those particular cartoons? They have stirred those pots for years, a thousand ways as long as they thought the harm would come to others. Spy planes…..no crap off their backs. Spying to try to find terrorists before they blow someone up? Not their problem if they endanger others.
I am mixed over publishing now, but only because of our boys scattered around the world. I keep thinking maybe the dear chickens have crapped enough on the troops that are trying to protect their butts. So they can speak truth to power.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:06 am
Or…..they could do something really different. They could just give the news.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:14 am
Back to addressing the underlying question again: “why do they hate usâ€.
Robert asks that old leftist question…
Look around Robert …they’ve hated everybody - even each other — for centuries. They are taught to hate practically from the day they are born.
They’ll even snuff out the lives of their own small children in order to bite their enemies.
They expect the rewards in their afterlife for all this bloodshed they’ve committed to consist of a ” feast of riches and virgin slaves for neverending sexual exploits.
Hardly along the lines of most religions which “convey the idea that the afterlife is a spiritual place.
Answering your question Robert, even if an answer existed, wouldn’t change anything. Nothing short of our complete dhimmitude would, and then they’d still continue to to kill one another.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:25 am
BRAVO Owl
And ED..the stench of what YOU say would “knock a buzzard off an outhouse”!
None of the world’s other religions have condoned and committed violence in modern living history…none.
As far as the Crusades….leftists have rewritten history. The Crusades were in retaliation for the brutality and mayhem perpetrated upon them my the Islamics.
February 9th, 2006 at 2:41 am
Freedom of the press includes not only the right to freely publish, but also the right not to publish. Every news organization has its own standards, when those come in conflict with readers or viewers, the audience should pick up another newspaper or turn the channel.
What crap. You still don’t get it.
I’ll repeat what I said earlier:
How the hell can you provide commentary on cartoons that you refuse to show as context- a necessary service to the audience so they can arrive at an informed opinion?
Please don’t envoke the “sensivity” argument, the public isn’t buying that hypocrisy anymore. We’ve noticed how selectively it has been applied over the years by the media.
Every news organization has its own standards, when those come in conflict with readers or viewers, the audience should pick up another newspaper or turn the channel.
In other words ratings = standards. Trust me, the only ones that will be your viewers or readers will be the Islamofascists eventually. They will feel protected and right at home with the American MSM’s self-censorship on their behalf.
February 9th, 2006 at 2:46 am
Islam has been counting on the leftist U.S. MSM to back them up every step of the way in the ongoing jihad, as well as the current Cartoon Jihad of the disaffected youth all over the Earth. With this deal of the cards they’ve shown they In Fact had the winning bet. The MSM has proven itself to be as loyal as expected. Congratulations, U.S. MSM. You have definitively proven your true colors for all the world to see.
MSM’s spinelessness is as apparant as that of ONE BILLION so-called moderate Muslims.
Oh, did you know that an Egyptian paper, Al Faqr, printed all 12 cartoons in October, 2005, without even a hint of rampaging in response? If it’s so fatwahwable to show the craven image of Allah, how is it that MUSLIMS can do it with impunity? Google it, please, I don’t feel like providing the link. And did you know that the very Iranian paper which is organizing a Holocaust Cartoon Contest Also has images of Allah on it’s own web site? Again, google it. Sometimes I can deal with the lunacy of our world. But tonight, it just makes me feel ill as it is too effin’ sick to behold.
Right on and fight on, owl 1 and Ravo.
Ed, I couldn’t stand the thought of even clicking into your blog.
Good night, All. I surely hope tomorrow will be a better day.
February 9th, 2006 at 2:58 am
In the interest of transparancy, I need to say I accidentally used a nickname I go by elsewhere in the blogosphere. Sprite should have read, Eileen, for those of you who know me here.
Sorry, I’m tired and am truly done in by the news of this day.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Ed–as a member of the MSM, you had best get your facts straight. Islam is not the world’s largest religion. It,however, has the largest number of terrorists–about 20% of the flock. You, as a member of the MSM, are ready and willing to excuse and condone their terrorism by finding excuses and fearing them. You are willing to allow islam to dictate to you. Appeasing islams is what you you best, and you do it with searching for equivalencies in other religions, but you fail, becuse the type of lunacy we are seeing is only found in islam.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:24 am
I’d disagree that AP is wrong here. Why should they carry something they find offensive and maybe taseless? It’s been an old journalistic tradition to choose material that provides more benifits to readers than harm. Depending on who your readers are - and AP has a very diverse group - some of whome aren’t as sophisticated as to maybe take some of the information the “right” way… So, why incite hatred, or make people disgusted, or make them feel like their most sacred beliefs are being trashed in public? While the cartoons themselves became the news, I’d argue that some media outlets may be justified in deciding not to run them.
There was a similar debate about publishing photos of people jumping down from WTC, or photos of maimed bodies of dead Iraqis, behadings of hostages, etc. etc. Somewhere a line should be drawn - not everyone can process/interprete this info in a proper manner - understand what a huge tragedy 9/11 was, or how bad terrorists are, or what the realities of distant war are, for example.
The beauty of today’s media environment is that you can get almost any information deemed not appropriate by some channels, but deemed totally appropriate by others. So, as long as there’s a choice, I see no problem here. People are served well as long as they have choice, imo.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
“Why should they carry something they find offensive and maybe taseless?”
Is that why they refused to print the pictures? I don’t think so! They print Piss Christ and Dung Mary, also offensive. They were afraid, for crying out loud, and I would be too!! What angers most of us is that they LIE about their fear and make excuse after excuse for these violent thugs whose only goal is to destroy free societies as well as the free press.
When the media lie about something as important as free speech or fear of intimidation, they lose it. It weakens democracy itself. That’s why the cartoons are important.
Now, back to our regular programming: bashing Bush. He won’t chop their heads off.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Three cheers for all moslems. They do not sit by while the trendy crowd mocks their religion. Christians should riot too over the many insulting anti christian “works of art.”
Three cheers again.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Is that why they refused to print the pictures? I don’t think so! They print Piss Christ and Dung Mary, also offensive. They were afraid, for crying out loud, and I would be too!! What angers most of us is that they LIE about their fear and make excuse after excuse for these violent thugs whose only goal is to destroy free societies as well as the free press.
When the media lie about something as important as free speech or fear of intimidation, they lose it.
The absolute truth about this situation millions of posts all over the internet have failed to illuminate since this controversy began, has been aptly captured in those few sentences. Thank you Patricia.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Wise One: Christ NEVER approved of violence and/or coercion as a way to bring man to God.
His entire life was based on showing that man’s way to God is not thru pride. Christians consider pride a source of most sin.
“The work of Muhammad is based on being honored and the work of Christ is based on being insulted. This produces two very different reactions to mockery.
If Christ had not been insulted, there would be no salvation. This was his saving work: to be insulted and die to rescue sinners from the wrath of God.
Already in the Psalms the path of mockery was promised: “
“All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads†(Psalm 22:7).
“He was despised and rejected by men . . . as one from whom men hide their faces . . . and we esteemed him not†(Isaiah 53:3).
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account†(Matthew 5:11).
February 9th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
I’d disagree that AP is wrong here. Why should they carry something they find offensive and maybe taseless?
Like the media doesn’t offend someone, somewhere every day?
I’ll repeat again:
How the hell can you provide commentary on cartoons that you refuse to show as context - a necessary service to the audience so they can arrive at an informed opinion?
Somewhere a line should be drawn…
And who should draw it? The self-serving agenda and ratings driven commercial MSM? Amazing how some people readily give up their freedom of speech. The Russians have given it back to Putin. The state has taken back all of the TV stations with hardly a wimper from the populace. Not all people cherish free speech. Leftists sure as hell don’t.
This is about the right to free speech. It’s worth dying for. Not killing because you are offended. That’s the difference between Islam and us.
February 9th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
“…what the cartoon rage is really all about: criminalizing criticism of Islam in the West, which would, of course, allow jihadists a virtually free hand.”
February 9th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
This pretty much sums it up:
http://media.putfile.com/Taqiyya78
February 9th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Good point RAVO. I will repent after the Godless, secular-humanists are punished.
I have seen and heard their filthy trash for decades. Now it is payback time
February 9th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Wise One, …your anger is understandable.
But God does not need man to punish or kill for Him. The Creator is fully capable of easily killing or punishing in a blink…should He so desire, without assistance from man.
February 9th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
I find less and less reason to pay attention to “traditional media” outlets.
These guys are Chicken S__T. How can I judge for myself how offensive (or simply PI) they are unless I at least see them, or at least describe them in some detail. How will I learn what is offensive to certain groups of people?
Anyway - if traditional media was more enthusiastic about getting the facts straight instead of offending people, it would be much more useful.
(sigh)
February 9th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Wow, I agree totally with Andrew Sullivan on something for the first time in about three years…
February 9th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Same here, I have been avoiding AS like the plague and in my mind have labelled him a fundamentalist gayist-but I have followed links on the danish cartoon to Andrew’s blog, and I have to admit I respect and admire his stand on this. He did a good job on CNN standing up to the rude muslim guy who kept cutting Andrew off and insisted on having the first and last word.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:02 am
Tonight is better.
Kudos to owl 1, Ravo, kat, penny, Patricia, Mike M, ct…and our host.
You know why I’ve stuck around here, Jeff. Continuing prayers for your good health.
F*** Islam.
Never forget:
The word ISLAM, translated = SUBMISSION.
I highly doubt the cult will survive this round of the ‘clash of civilizations’. We don’t plan to be submittin’ any time soon, now. And our MSM will retire to the La Brea Tarpits where they belong. How sad, really.
Here’s some spine: the college paper from the University of Illinois. http://www.dailyillini.com/media/paper736/news/2006/02/09/Opinions/Cartoons.As.Published.In.The.Danish.JyllandsPosten-1606534.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.dailyillini.com
Take a note, eh, U.S. MSM?
February 10th, 2006 at 11:41 am
[...] The Buzz Machine author also takes up the issue of the current controversy over publishing or broadcasting cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that are offensive to Muslims. Almost all American media organizations have chosen not to run them. But the author makes the argument that the media publishes offensive stuff all the time. He says murders are offensive, war is offensive, and we fill the news with those things. [...]
February 10th, 2006 at 11:51 am
The US press has been obediently in allowing the Pentagon ban in showing pictures of caskets arriving at Dover. Isn’t that a violation of free speech - but they have obeyed. There is self-censorship all the time.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
“The US press has been obediently in allowing the Pentagon ban in showing pictures of caskets arriving at Dover……….they have obeyed.”
They haven’t “obeyed”. Bush bashing is the creed of most of the MSM. Get real. They simply don’t have access to the military base which the military has every right to restrict. Big difference.
The ban was reinstated in 1991.
Military censors instituted a virtual blackout of such photos in World War I. That ban continued until nearly the
end of World War II.
Ironic that the same MSM, who would love to have access to the pictures of the coffins to bash Bush, censored itself in showing pictures of people jumping out of the WTC as “too graphic”. God forbid that they are viewed as bashing the Islamofascists. Haven’t you noticed that each passing 9/11 anniversary has had less and less images and time devoted to it?
The MSM only comments on the Mohammed cartoons which they have no restriction in accessing unlike the coffins. Censoring the cartoons leaves the public with no context to judge for themselves. I like to form my own opinions with all of the facts presented to me. Isn’t it a service of the MSM to give people, like our courts to the jury, all of the facts?
February 10th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Charles Krauthammer has an excellent article in the Post. It’s a must read.
{A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who don’t are not moderates but hypocrites, opportunists and agents for the rioters, merely using different means to advance the same goal: to impose upon the West, with its traditions of freedom of speech, a set of taboos that is exclusive to the Islamic faith. These are not defenders of religion but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West.
And these “moderates” are aided and abetted by Western “moderates” who publish pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung and celebrate the “Piss Christ” (a crucifix sitting in a jar of urine) as art deserving public subsidy, but who are seized with a sudden religious sensitivity when the subject is Muhammad.}
February 15th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Eileen,
The editors of the University of Illinois Urbana-Chanpaign student newspaper who published the cartoons have been suspended until the university can conduct an “investigation” and fire them. Keep in mind that this was supposed to be an independant student newspaper.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0602150267feb15,1,741296.story?coll=chi-news-hed
The days when universities were places where differing ideas could be discussed without retribution are long over.