Sunday, May 31, 2015

NYT: Mohammed Cartoons Too Offensive, Dung Virgin Mary Just Fine

 charlie-hebdo-mohammed-719078
by Daniel Greenfield 

 Just in case anyone was wondering whether the New York Times’ post-Hebdo massacre stance went for all religions, it doesn’t. It is a privilege specifically reserved for Islam and Muslims.
Here are the excuses that the New York Times made for not publishing Hebdo’s Mohammed cartoons.
New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet explained Thursday that the Grey Lady won’t republish provocative Muhammad cartoons from a French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo because the images are simply too obscene.
“Was it hard to deny our readers these images? Absolutely. But we still have standards, and they involve not running offensive material,”
“I agree that the cartoons are central to the story. And it was hard as hell not to publish them. But to understand the real sensitivity of this issues you would have to publish the most sensitive images,” Baquet said.
“Have you seen them? They are sexual, and truly provocative. They are not the ones a handful of papers have run. Those are mild. If you really want to understand the issue, you would have to show the most over-the-top images,” he said. “And they don’t meet our standards. They are provocative on purpose. They show religious figures in sexual positions. We do not show those.”
Elsewhere, in separate statement to Politico, Baquet explained that the New York Times is also trying to avoid offending its Muslim readers: “[L]et’s not forget the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet.”
“I don’t give a damn about the head of [the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] but I do care about that family and it is arrogant to ignore them,” he said
In 1999, the New York Times republished an image of Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary,” a painting “with a clump of elephant dung on one breast and cutouts of genitalia from pornographic magazines in the background,” Politico reported.
Now that photo is back.
Clearly the New York Times does publish “offensive material”. It publishes “obscene materials”. It does not have a problem with sexual materials involving religious figures.
It just has one exception. Mohammed.
Dean Baquet lied. He doesn’t care about the Catholic family in Brooklyn. He is arrogant enough to ignore them. Like the rest of the media, he is only concerned with pandering and catering to Muslims.
The media has implemented an unofficial blasphemy law on Islam.
 frontpagemag

No comments: