| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Oh please
Can it get anymore pathetic these days than the op/ed pages of the New York Times? Not even two weeks after they stated their reasons why they wouldn’t publish the ‘offensive’ Mohammed cartoons, an editorial appears in their paper today that would have you believing that they never took such an appeasing stance – and they go so far as to frown on others who’s actions they believe have sent a message of appeasement to Islamofascists:
With every new riot over the Danish cartoons, it becomes clearer that the protests are no longer about the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, but about the demagoguery of Islamic extremists. The demonstrators are undeniably outraged by what they perceive as blasphemy. But radical Islamists are trying to harness that indignation to their political goals and their theocratic ends by fomenting hatred for the West and for moderate regimes in the Muslim world. These are dangerous games, and they require the most resolute response.
A resolute response we won’t see from the NYT, as that policy from two weeks ago suggests:
“On the one hand, we have abundant evidence that a significant number of people — some of them our readers — consider these cartoons deeply offensive and inflammatory” Mr. Keller wrote. “Indeed, to publish them after seeing the outrage and violence across the Islamic world could be perceived as a particularly deliberate insult” he said.
“On the other hand” he continued, “we feel we can quite adequately convey the nature of the cartoons by describing them.” I quite agree. I doubt that the descriptions of the cartoons in Times articles over the past four days have left many readers with any major questions about why the drawings could offend Muslims or why some people might find humor in them.
Back to today’s editorial, the NYT goes on to say:
It is not the West that is most threatened in this crisis. The voices of moderation in the Muslim world are the ones that are being intimidated and silenced. Those few journalists and leaders who have spoken out against the rioting have been vilified and assailed, and even jailed. According to a report by Michael Slackman and Hassan M. Fattah in The New York Times, 11 journalists in five Islamic countries face prosecution for printing some of the Danish cartoons, even when their purpose was to condemn them.
In most of these cases, the legal action represents attempts by cowed authorities to appease the Islamists.
But the effect — in Yemen, Jordan and other countries — has only been to give extremists a dollop of legitimacy, and to encourage them to turn up the heat. That, in turn, increases the perception of a “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West.
The willful ignorance here is breathtaking. The NYT (among other popular news outlets) has refused to reprint the cartoons, yet has the audacity to shake its finger at “cowed authorities” who the NYT claims are trying to “appease the Islamists”? Has the editorial board at the NYT looked in a mirror lately?
It’s a sad day in America when a university newspaper displays more courage than the NYT and most of the rest of the mainstream media (like the Washington Post and CNN). The Daily Tarheel was prepared to take the heat over their publishing of the Mohammed cartoons. The NYT, the s0-called newspaper of record, chose to take the easy way out – preferring to appease than to demonstrate to fanatical Islamists that they (the NYT) weren’t going to be intimidated by their threats, blackmail, and violence.
What’s especially baffling about this op/ed piece is how it starts out: “With every new riot over the Danish cartoons, it becomes clearer that the protests are no longer about the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, but about the demagoguery of Islamic extremists. ” The NYT is right about the fact that these riots were about something much bigger than the ‘offensive’ Mohammed cartoons, but the cartoons were the catalyst to stoking the anti-west fires that rage within the heart of fanatatical Islamists. What I find curious about the NYT’s opener is the fact that that was quite obvious not long after the start of all the outrage over the cartoons. Gateway Pundit was one of many bloggers who reported on that well before the NYT came to the realization that all was not as it seemed.
The bottom line is that the NYT’s stance is little more than a too-late attempt to catch up with those who boldly decided to go forth in reprinting the cartoons from the beginning of this controversy. In effect, the NYT have tried with this editorial to make themselves look strong and resolute on the issue when in reality, their stance (one in which they’ve not backed down) on the reprinting of the cartoons was just one of many similar stances made in mainstream newspapers/outlets across America that, in essence, gave the Islamofascists’ rioting the ‘legitimacy’ the NYT decried in their editorial piece and not only that, those stances symbolized the very type of appeasement the Times seemingly frowned upon in the same editorial.
Read more commentary on this via Captain Ed and All Things Beautiful (who has a link roundup of others blogging on this).
Related Toldjah So posts:
- Hitchensville
- An odd pairing – Dershowitz and Bennett
- Media double standard on offending Muslims
- Fanatical Islamists wage war on the Internet over cartoons
- Hats off to the Daily Tarheel
- EU windbags considering ‘media code’ after cartoon controversy
- The anatomy of the cartoon jihad
- NYT publishes virgin Mary “art” – but not ‘offensive’ Mohammed cartoons
- Oh indeed – it’s definitely about hate!
- Iran paper to publish Holocaust ‘cartoons’
- Another US media double standard re: cartoons
- US media will print Abu Ghraib photos but not controversial cartoons
- Multicultural sensitivity and how it can have brutal consequences
- US sides with Muslims in cartoon controversy
- More European papers reprinting “offensive” Islamic cartoons
- Bomb threats made against Danish paper over Mohammed cartoons
RSS feed for comments on this post.
19 Responses to “Oh please”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
OK, earlier I said that WF Buckley has shown he’s getting senile, now the NYT has developed a full blown case of either dementia or narcisistic, schizophrenic, sociopathy. What in the world?!?! Are they so completely delusional that they actually think anyone else will believe their Orwellian rewriting of history, or are they so mentally ill (due to guilt no doubt) that they are saying this to convince themselves? Gadzooks!!! Maybe it’s both!!!
Sweet Baby Jesus, you can’t POSSIBLY think that the NYT would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever take some sort of sensible stance on a topic, now did you? Still, this one is particulary galling, I agree. I’m just glad that their ombudsman does such a stellar job of keeping all their ducks in a row.
This way, a few years from now they can link to proof that they said “cartoonists are bad” or “jihadists are bad”, depending on how events unfold.
The NYT is the epitome of wussy. With a capital p.
Well, that leaves me wondering what you think they should have done. Printed the offensive cartoons? Or just not spoken about the issue at all?
I can imagine that should the head nit at NYT be compelled to face its disease and seeks out a local support group, the intro might proceed as follows. Mr. Keller walks into a room full of people and introduces himself. Hi I’m not sure if we’re in the right place but today my name is Mr. Keller. Hi Mr. Keller, Willy Nilly, lefty, dhimmi, out to lunch, steve, mark, actus, ……
No offense intended for those who’s name appears above, and who’s lifestyle is not befitting of similar psychosis as the NYT’s.
The New York Times – a mighty tower of Jell-O.
You all realize that once the new democratic government in Iraq drives out the terrorists, the Times will try to swoop in and take all the credit. You think I exaggerate? Heck – they did it after the Cold War, which the Times tried their darndest to win for the Soviet Union. It’s hard to respect a newspaper that bested Pravda in pro-Communist bloviating. Once the Berlin Wall came down, the Times tried to make it sound like they – and they alone – took on the Evil Empire and won single-handedly.
They will do it again in Iraq.
The thing that seems lost now is that the Danish Imams also faked three images that were definitely blasphemous and they should be punished under sharia law. No one is taking them to task for their blasphemy, but rioting against the cartoonists.
It needs to be remembered that there is no lie, no outrage, nothing that is not proper to commit against an infidel if it helps to bring about Islamic sovreignty. The Times is just getting its dhimmitude on early.
So, John, what do you think of the UAE buying our ports? And given the fact that the UAE doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist should we be doing business with them? What about Hamas? The Republicans seem to be getting bogged down with double standards. Peace
steve, by now you know that the UAE isn’t buying any ports. Why do you insist on spewing false statements? I’m less concerned about UAE reps running some terminals at US ports than I am the Doncs that people like you keep electing.
Anyone else catch Hildebeast on CNN STILL claiming that we are selling the ports? Is it possible for a Dem to see a TV camera and mic and NOT lie? Rhetorical question. We all know the answer. Peas and carrots
“On the other hand” he continued, “we feel we can quite adequately convey the nature of the cartoons by describing them.”
However, “describing them” did not seem to be adequate in the case of Chris Ofili’s dung-encrusted Virgin Mary, which the Times felt compelled to reproduce graphically only a few days ago. Christians, we are all aware, don’t riot or issue fatwas over such things.
Hypocrisy, thy name is the New York Times…and Manhattan liberalism in general.
Christians blow up abortion clinics and kill people, however. That is hypocrisy as well. So is putting people to death in the death chamber and dropping bombs on women and children. Look to the log in your own eye. Peace
Since we have the broad brush out. Steve you liberals burn our churches. In fact I bet it is 100 to 1 church burnings to abortion clinic bombings. You hypocrite, why don’t you talk about that ever. – Lorica
The only thing that the Left has ever burned were bra’s. Peace
and flags…
and hundreds of oil wells (ala Saddam who is big government – which is to the left of center)
and houses in Maryland….
and SUV’s….
See where this gets us? No where. How about talking solutions and then addressing what the results would be of said solutions (which you never do)?
Hmmm? Thats all? Bras?
How about flags?
How about slashing tires?
How about throwing blood all over offices?
How about defacing public and private property?
How about assualting individuals with things like pies?
How about burning effigies of the President?
Ah lets not forget those nice Molotov cocktail that get thrown also.
Let me help you in refreshing your memory:
Zombie Time
Only thing burned by Liberals is a Bra? That is an easily debunked lie.
Next?
And what about that Kosmic crap in your Hookah!
Moody Blues-In the beginning – Great song steve, check it out! That’ll give you something to do, between classes.