The New York Times decided earlier this week not to reprint the offensive cartoons that have led to widespread violent riots by Muslims. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religions symbols, The Times wrote on Feb. 7, 2006.
The same editorial Board decided seven years ago to print an image of the Virgin Mary, covered in dung and surrounded by pornographic images. Cultural experimentation and transgression are not threats to civility but part of the texture and meaning of daily life, said a Times editorial on Sept. 29, 1999. But, on Feb. 7, the Times re-published the Virgin Mary dung image.
And, in his Feb. 8 broadcast, FoxNews Bill O'Reilly commented that when a Corpus Christi play opened with a gay Jesus, the Times criticized Christian protestors for bigotry, violence and contempt for artistic expression".
However, as noted by Tony Perkins, such selective reporting is not unique to the Times
The Boston Globe and The Los Angeles Times shied away from offending Muslims, but re-published pictures of a crucifix immersed in urine. Editors of The Washington Post sanctimoniously tell us they prefer to "refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."Clearly the American press is appeasing the Islamic population that is offended by political cartoons which suggest, among other things, that Muslims are violent.Oh, really? The Post gave a roost for half a century to Herblock. His vicious cartoons never shrank from showing contempt for Christians. One of his efforts showed George W. Bush putting a church steeple atop the White House. Another depicted a Baptist deacon in a knee-length frock coat, out at the elbows, with a snake in his pocket. The Post sneeringly referred to Evangelicals as "poor, uneducated, and easy to command."
Some may think this is a stretch, but the present media appeasement looks similar to that experienced by pro-lifers who attempt to run ads displaying ultrasound images of unborn children.
On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Jill Stanek reported that an Illinois Newspaper refused to run advertisements by Will County Right to Life. The newspaper's ad department stated the ultrasound images were too "graphic." (click here to view) They were apparently concerned the innocuous images might offend or even inflame some of their readers and chose to appease supporters of abortion. The Herald's decision, like the Times choice to suppress the offensive cartoons, was based on ideology more than imagery.
Would the same paper have a problem depicting Christians in a demeaning manner or running an advertisement for Planned Parenthoods abortion services? My bet is "no".
CNSNews Correspondent Dawn Rizzoni reported Herald News has the details here.
