Aussie blogger Tim Blair makes a great point in response to the lack of publication by most newspapers here of the controversial cartoons that have sparked such a furor overseas. He writes:
[The American media] won’t publish cartoons, but they will run anything they can get out of Abu Ghraib. Both sets of images provoke Islamic anger; note how the media behaves when that anger is directed at them.
(Hat tip: John Hawkins)
It’s true. The media (and the left here) couldn’t wait to get their hands on any photos related to Abu Ghraib, but when it comes to ‘offensive’ cartoons about Mohammed:
Major American newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, did not publish the caricatures. Representatives said the story could be told effectively without publishing images that many would find offensive.
“Readers were well served by a short story without publishing the cartoon,” said Robert Christie, a spokesman for Dow Jones & Company, which owns The Wall Street Journal. “We didn’t want to publish anything that can be perceived as inflammatory to our readers’ culture when it didn’t add anything to the story.”
In a midafternoon meeting on Friday, editors at The Chicago Tribune discussed the issue but decided against publishing the cartoons. “We can communicate to our readers what this is about without running it,” said James O’Shea, the paper’s managing editor.
Most television news executives made similar decisions. On Friday CNN ran a disguised version of a cartoon, and on an NBC News program on Thursday, the camera shot depicted only a fragment of the full cartoon. CBS banned the broadcast of the cartoons across the network, said Kelli Edwards, a spokeswoman for CBS News.
Only one of the big three was brave enough to run the cartoons:
Only ABC showed a cartoon in its entirety, lingering over the image for several seconds during Thursday’s evening news broadcast and on “Nightline.” “We felt you couldn’t really explain to the audience what the controversy was without showing what the controversy was,” said Jeffrey Schneider, a spokesman.
Bravo to them, but shame on every other media outlet which refuses to broadcast and/or reprint these cartoons. The double standard here could not be more obvious.
Oh, and speaking of the land down under, the rage over the publication of the ‘offensive’ cartoons has spread to New Zealand.
BBC News is reporting that there have been four deaths associated with these violent demonstrations (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)
More: Did you find that the spontaneity regarding the riots over the cartoons well-coordinated? Rory McCarthy writing in the UK Guardian examines the possibility. (Hat tip: Captain Ed)
Victor Davis Hanson wonders: A European Awakening Against Islamic Fascism?
Related Toldjah So posts:
| Email This Post | Print This |
Will Al-Jazeera run the cartoons? if they do, should we bomb them for inciting muslim anger?
Comment by andrew @ 2/6/2006 - 9:49 am
Since there are no actual images of the prophet, the simple cartoons could depict any fanatic. How is it that so many people recognize these images and take offense? The cartoon becomes inflammatory only when someone in authority claims is a prohibited image. Seems like a pure case of terrorists’ propaganda producing intended results.
They do not have to blow up buildings to get tolerant people to submit to their demands.
Comment by omapian @ 2/6/2006 - 10:12 am
The author forgets completely about context. Most ideologues make that same mistake. Peace
Comment by steve @ 2/6/2006 - 10:19 am
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/6/2006 - 10:19 am
Get real tommy. You and the rest of your pals on the left who compare the reactions of Christians to how they are portrayed in the media versus the reactions of Muslims to these ‘offending’ cartoons have no leg to stand on. Boycotts are one thing. Mass rioting, violence, and death are quite another. Ya’ll just can’t help but try to and morally equate the actions of Christians to Muslims, can you?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/6/2006 - 10:27 am
Reposting this trackback from Right Voices (some of their trackbacks keep popping up in an old thread for some reason)
[...] One point that is center to the discussion is the fact that our MSM had failed to show these cartoons out of respect for “muslims” everywhere…..ABC has now broken ranks and shown some of cartoons. SisterToldja has a link to Tim Blair, in which he states that the MSM had no problem running Abu Garib photos, but somehow, by showing the cartoon, muslims will be offended? [...]
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/6/2006 - 10:29 am
Yes that religon of peace, we can see it in action now can’t we?
The cartoons don’t represent how they act and how they are told to act by the clerics who whip them into frenzy, what they are told to do by their most holy of books.
In a nutshell, it does not say to coinside peacefully with the infidels, it says to wipe them all out. Make truces if necessary till you have the strength to break them and wipe out the infidels.
I do not think there was this much RIOTING (I will not downgrade it and say row) even when the newspapers published a false account of koran flushing, ect.
I would think the flushing and defiling of thier most holiest of books would be more offensive that a cartoon, but we did not have rioting/burning embassies/killing priests and others over the flushing, just over a cartoon.
Yes, this is the religon of peace. Thier actions speak volumes.
Comment by sanity @ 2/6/2006 - 10:33 am
There are still many people who do not appreciate the beauty, and uniqueness, of our democratic republic. A government that exists with consent of the governed can disagree sharply, but without violence.
Those who try to equate the boycott of ‘French’ fries with the killing of infidels simply demean legitimate debate.
Comment by omapian @ 2/6/2006 - 10:35 am
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/6/2006 - 10:54 am
ST:
That’s the essential thing that libs don’t seem to get on this story. There are lawful ways to register your displeasure about an artist/cartoonist/writer/movie and there are unlawful ways. Burning/killing/beheading to get your way should once and for all be understood are not ways to levy a complaint. There are many liberals who get this who were on the Sunday talk shows. I suggest the liberals who don’t look at their words REAL hard because you are in the extreme.
BTW, Bill Kristol mentioned that not only were these cartoons published 5 months ago but they were pushed into the radical muslim world recently with 3 other more extreme cartoons that were not even published by the Danish newspaper. I haven’t heard this from anyone until then. I think it’s a significant piece of the puzzle.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/6/2006 - 10:55 am
down in you neck of the woods is what I meant my sentance to read. One other thing this is an example of why I gained sanity and stayed away from organized religion. Going crazy over a freaking book or cartoon is pretty off the wall to me. Check out George Carlin the comedian and then you may have a better understanding.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/6/2006 - 10:57 am
You can check out my latest exercise in freedom of expression HERE.
I’m sure certain folks would find it controversial…
Comment by camojack @ 2/6/2006 - 10:58 am
Tommy, you are dancing, but the tune is flat.
The riots are orchastrated by Imams who crave power more strongly than Hillary. If I were to make a comparison, it would be that the Islamics rioting are reacting just like Code Pink, the denizens at Daily Krap, and the Milwaukee Democrat tire slashing squad.
Comment by PCD @ 2/6/2006 - 10:59 am
I lived in VA for 21 years Tommy. I never heard anyone from “down” there ever claim the bible supports segregation.
Seems to me the only thing that REMAINS true is your willingness to make accusations. Why do you like doing that?
One of the most maligned segment of the United States to me is Southerners because I’ve been in CA for 14 years and see more racism here than where I grew up. Might I remind you where race riots were mostly? Northern cities, LA. What am I saying? That there is racism all over and I’m not sure where you get off changing the topic and smearing one area of the country when the issue is lawlessness due to free speech. Try to stay focued..
Comment by Baklava @ 2/6/2006 - 11:02 am
MY understanding is fine, tommy. It’s you who don’t understand - in your quest to equate Christians with Islamofascists. So many of your pals on the left love to do this in order to try and nullify the comments of Christians on issues relating to religious extremism. “Bbbbbbut ya’ll do it too!” seems to be the popular rallying cry from the usual suspects. Sorry, but it’s not going to work this time around.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/6/2006 - 11:05 am
There was a piece on Drudge showing the timeline of the cartoons. They were originally published in September. So obviously there is something going on that these people are only now rioting over them. I mean they can’t possibly be so backward that it takes 5 months for a reaction.
I also find it rich that Steve is scolding the author about taking things out of context. Good Lord, what next, “A”s on Bart’s report card??
- Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/6/2006 - 1:28 pm
The interesting part of this story that nobody seems to mention is the fact that the large Muslim population in the United States has been very quiet on this entire episode. Maybe they are the enlightened ones? Peace
Comment by steve @ 2/6/2006 - 3:36 pm
Let’s hope!
Comment by Baklava @ 2/6/2006 - 3:39 pm
steve, the Muslim population of the US has been too silent on many issues. They should have been outraged by 9/11 and been very vocal in condemning Bin Laden and his followers.
Comment by PCD @ 2/6/2006 - 3:55 pm
And CAIR has not been silent on this. As expected.
Andrew, the muslims have been showing these cartoons, plus the ones added by muslims, to muslims. That’s how they incite the ignorant to fury.
tommy, you might look up the race riots in NYC during the Civil War. I think you’ll find quite a few since then, too. Weren’t there some with Al Sharpton’s sanction? Y’all ain’t quite as pure as you think.
Comment by benning @ 2/6/2006 - 8:04 pm
- I won’t even respond to the moon-bats anymore. When a person can think themselves into enough of a pretzel to equate (angry debate and name calling/political cartoons) = (blowing up women and children/cutting off the heads of civilians/using IUD’s in public places to achieve max carnage) I think they’ve lost the capacity to rational thought. So why even bother.
Soooooooo my “Moderate Islamic Clerics/Leaders”. How many Fatwa’s have you issued against the murdering heathans that are running around commiting heineous war crimes in the name of Allah?
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/6/2006 - 10:23 pm
” How many Fatwa’s have you issued against the murdering heathans that are running around commiting heineous war crimes in the name of Allah?”
Not everyone can issue fatwas. And not everyone who does it is doing it properly. Like bin laden? He’s not supposed to be doing it.
Comment by andrew @ 2/6/2006 - 10:31 pm
- Andrew you have mastered the lefts fine art of willful ignorance and totally missed the point as usual. Hopefully you’ll all be just as adroit at falling on your Marxist faces at the ballot box in the future….
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/6/2006 - 10:36 pm
“Andrew you have mastered the lefts fine art of willful ignorance and totally missed the point as usual. ”
I agree. I am ignorant of who you want issuing fatwas. Since you know all about them.
Comment by andrew @ 2/6/2006 - 11:00 pm
It is unimportant who can rightfully issue a fatwa. It only matters if it is acted on. If I issue a fatwa on Israel and a palestinian kills some Israelis, who cares if I had the right to issue it?
The same would go for a fatwa on terrorists. I’d be very happy to see some of these coming from the Muslim world, religiously legal or not. I’d be curious to see how many fatwas are issued that don’t involve killing someone. I’m sure it happens once in a while so they can keep the ‘religion of peace’ misnomer, but I’d bet it’s pretty rare.
Comment by blogagog @ 2/7/2006 - 4:06 am
Chirac slams media
Comment by Baklava @ 2/8/2006 - 10:59 am
New article on leaked additional Abu Ghraib pictures now at the Irony Party of Australia electronic pamphlet:
US Concerned New Torture Pictures Could Give Wrong Impression
A spokesman for the US State Department has described the broadcast of newly leaked pictures of the mistreatment of prisoners held by the Coalition in Iraq by as ‘unnecessarily provocative and irresponsible’, suggesting the screening of images of horrific abuse could create an impression the world’s only superpower is less than scrupulously and fanatically fair and humane in its handling and interrogation of prisoners captured by necessity in the course of the Global War on Terror.
http://www.ironyparty.org/newsfeed.htm
Comment by Senor Valquez @ 2/16/2006 - 4:19 pm