Our Pitiful MSM

Our media judges them too offensive?? How dare they. This is the same media which just had Kanye West depicting Christ? The same media which covered the Piss Christ story, with pictures? The same media that just last week ran a cartoon of a soldier with no arms and legs? And now these cartoons are too offensive to run? What, did the New York Times think it looked like a Christmas tree?? Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

Along with what it is showing the world about radical islam, this incident should also show American citizens just how disgraceful our own media has become. And the lesson they would leave us with is, if the New York Times is going to campaign against our interests during war, maybe we should burn the building down. It appears it's that type of pressure to which they ultimately respond. Cowards. More here

And I suppose Fox's excuse is that a Saudi owns five percent of them ... so much for their credibility in this.

BILLIONAIRE Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has raised his stake in media giant News Corporation to 5.46 per cent of voting shares and backed the leadership of chairman and chief executive Rupert Murdoch, lifting the company's shares.

The prince's new holding of Class B voting shares replaced the three per cent stake in Class A non-voting shares previously held by his investment company, Kingdom, Prince Alwaleed's office said.

CSM story here

But while the demonstrations were inflamed at least in part by the cartoons' republishing by newspapers across continental Europe, the media in the United States have largely abstained from representing the cartoons, citing them as "too offensive to run," reports Editor and Publisher.

Comments

[CitizenDick]

I say run 'em. The American media is just afraid we'll find the reaction of the Muslims too offensive in comparison to extremely mild cartoons.

To his credit, Wolf Blitzer did ask the Saudi Ambassador to the US yesterday if the cartoons of Jews in Saudi papers were offensive (and he showed them on TV) and the Saudi ambassador said they offended him. The Saudi Ambassador didn't burn any buldings down. Why would any sane person even if they were offended?

Every newspaper in the US should print them. Every American should see the extent of the idiocy involved.

[Neantaeus]

I'm not sure what you are so worked up about here Dan. I'm sure if the American MSM thought that pictures of Piss Christ would cause Christians to riot, burn museums and kill who, artists? they would not publish them either.
I'm sure that most media wonks are were thinking about what happened when Newsweek ran that bogus article about American interrogators mistreating the Koran and decided that the risk to themselves, Americans and American interests wasn't worth whatever point they might make about freedom of the press here in enlightened west.
A point, by the way, that would be completely lost on these whack-job Islamists who have never enjoyed anything close to the freedom of expression that we take for granted.
As for Kayne West, why dignify that narcissistic pop- slut with your attention? With a little luck, he'll be gone in a year: drooling onto his shirt while he tries to convince the bartender that he's good for another round.

[caseyschenkofksy]

There is a significant difference between comparing images in Christianity in art and entertainment and the visual representation of Allah. The former does not regard the visual representation of God (for example) as heresy, so artists whose representation of Christian figures in their work is challenging or possibly (to some) offensive are still working within a culturally acceptable framework. It just isn't the same, and to behave as if it is can only create more problems. At least some resident media organizations are cognizant enough to underestand the difference.

[Sgt. York]

RE: "Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal... and backed the leadership of chairman and chief executive Rupert Murdoch"

If you are the nephew of a brutal dictator... that makes you "Alwaleed bin Talal, the nephew of the dictator of Saudi Arabia" rather than this romanticized "prince" garbage.

[splashtc]

The cartoons should run everyday in every newspaper until the extremists get tired of rioting - then they'll get it- that it's free speech and to just ignore it.

[Phoenix]

For a while now I've found myself sick to death of 'freedom of speech' and the excuse it offers for every imaginable insult. I think of freedom of speech and the NYT and the LAT and wonder - whose side are you on and how many people have you hurt because of your liberal views spewed daily for the world to see. We are either buried in liberal bias or politically correct hate speech. Screw it. It may be, for once, that every editor, TV producer, has stepped back and given thought to the ramifications of printing these cartoons and what effect it might have on our soldiers. Yeah, I know - do they even have that much of a conscience? But none has shown them, and for sure, no one person called every MSM outfit and said, "Let's be cool on this one because the soldiers might get hurt." Pussies or heros? Maybe I'm dreaming. I think any country, on the other hand, that has no soldiers isolated in the middle of the Levant should run the cartoons and stand their ground.

Here is a quotation .... I don't know the author:

"St. Augustine once admonished that we should never use the truth to injure. I believe there are dark and uncertain moments in our lives when it's not wrong for each of us to feel that he wrote those words especially for us."

[ViVi]

.I actually think that NOT publishing the cartoons in many instances is the responsible thing to do, particularly since the Dutch cartoonists have indicated that they want the cartoons pulled.

For pete's sake, people have now died. We shouldnt give in to terrorist extremists, but there are more effective ways of dealing with the problem than by publishing cartoons which are known to incite, just for the sake of publishing them. It's not as if there is an important message in the cartoons themselves that needs to reach the masses.

[danascully]

Buy Danish.

[CitizenDick]

A religion who's members are incited to kill by drawings of a diety or prophet is not a religion compatible with the survival of the human species.

[Enzo]

The US and the US government are hypocritical.

The Government
---------------
The US goverment which is fighting a war in Iraq to install a democracy
in the Middle East, but doesn't even really support Taiwan's independence and kowtows to China like a bitch. We
only support freedom when it doesn't affect our trade and business.

Freedom of the press. Where?
----------------------------
The US newspapers like the NYT will gladly run all kinds of tastless cartoons and columns, yet won't run some pictures
that might offend muslims. Make no mistake, it's not out of respect for religion, it's out of fear. The US fears the backlash
will cause more terrorism and more violence. If cartoons are setting things off over there, there's zero hope for democracy
and freedom.

The superbowl broadcast even censored Rolling Stones lyrics and Google's censoring results in China. The US as an idea is
going down hill fast.

Iranian Crisis
------------
If Iran wants nuclear weapons, I say let them have them. How about one for each of their cities?

[yankee-in-france]

Vivi posted:
I actually think that NOT publishing the cartoons in many instances is the responsible thing to do, particularly since the Dutch cartoonists have indicated that they want the cartoons pulled.

Geez, I thought they were Danish cartoonists.

[Phoenix]

Enzo,

Go study absolutism and see if you feel the same way as your comment indicates.

[Joni]

Heck!! That shows just how successfully the muslim Imans in Denmark and all over the world manipulate the press.

I am impressed at how well they gag our media and keep the truth from coming up! Amazing!
How stupid can the CNN, CNBC, NY Times guys get?
We are being played as fools!! They control the info, soon will control our thoughts!!