February 10, 2006
A selective willingness to offend (ii)

Today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer treats us to a non-explanation why "Not showing drawings responsible choice"

news organizations are frequently faced with choices regarding images that force them to consider the likelihood those images will be offensive to segments of readers. In attempting to be responsible, editors weigh the value of the images in telling a story to determine if the need for them outweighs the potential offense.
This sounds lamely similar to the Times' non-explanation from yesterday. The reality is that both papers are always publishing material that they know will be hurtful or offensive to somebody (e.g. the cartoons of David Horsey or the photo of the flag-draped coffins). Both papers obviously have the prerogative to publish or not publish whatever they see fit. But for whatever reason, both papers seem to be extremely reluctant to offend Muslims, yet nonchalant or even eager to offend Westerners. I'd be very interested in their explanations as to why.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 10, 2006 09:47 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Best summation of the issue written by anyone to date. So, why?

Posted by: swatter on February 10, 2006 09:50 AM
2. They should just change the name to the Islam Daily.

Posted by: pbj on February 10, 2006 09:51 AM
3. PI and Times -

Do you realize or admit to yourselves that YOU ARE BEING MUZZLED?

Posted by: dan on February 10, 2006 09:58 AM
4. Does anyone realize that in the Times today they have a cartoon with a dove being restrained by a star of David??? It is located in the letters to the editor!

Double Standard

Posted by: Dale from lake city on February 10, 2006 11:01 AM
5. They don't care because no one in their family has been beheaded YET.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on February 10, 2006 11:04 AM
6. Repeating my previous post:

Check out Michelle Malkin's latest posts detailing the fired, suspended editors and the closed down papers -- dhimmietude -- submission to the cult of islam -- that is what the Times and PEE EYE and other papers are doing -- and it is being interpreted by the islamo-cultists that the western world is submitting -- pay attention to the wussey crap coming out of all the western governments -- what a load -- the 12 cartoons were published 5 months ago with nary a whimper and so the SOB's have had to fake up some real offensive cartoons to get the muslim street riled up and lie about the origins of the things --

The MSM in not leading any kind of resistance to submission is in fact submitting in our name -- not only are they compromising freedom of speech but they are also enabling and aiding the establishment of a state 'religion' -- one which demands total conversion/extermination or in special priviliged cases -- life among them as an infidel - but only upon the payment of special 'taxes' - i.e. protection money -- WAKE UP -- from this day on -- any advertising or subscription money paid to any submitting MSM newspapers or news magazines should be considered to be partial payment of the dhimmie tax -- anyone reading this who subscribes to any submitting MSM publication should immediately cancel their subscriptions --

And we (Fed Gov't) incinerated the Branch Davidians -- ???? what the ----?? -- Anyone remember any cartoons re David Koresh?? -- did Horsey come up with any?? David Koresh was patty-cake, patty-cake compared with ol' Mo' -- speaking of patty-cake >>> did osamma mamma murray have anything good to say about poor ol' David and the 80 incinerates (must notta been building those day care centers) -- did dagnab mcdhimmiewit go vist David and declare him a man of peace??
jimmah cahtah stand up for the 80 incinerated -?? --

WE GOT SOME MAJOR HOUSE CLEANING COMING UP

Posted by: Bill on February 10, 2006 11:45 AM
7. Hmmm,

What cartoon do you think the Times/PI would print:

1) Cindy Shehan squating over her sons grave defecating with the caption, I mourn my son

or

2) Bush doing the same thing with the caption I mourn her son.

Both are offensive, but I don't think they'd think so for #2 (no pun intended)

Posted by: Dengle on February 10, 2006 11:50 AM
8. "The reality is that both papers are always publishing material that they know will be hurtful or offensive to somebody (e.g. the cartoons of David Horsey or the photo of the flag-draped coffins)".

Or the regularly published 'cartoons' of Ted Rall.

Posted by: Hank Bradley on February 10, 2006 11:50 AM
9. Hopefully we are stockpiling liquified pig manure

Posted by: Bill on February 10, 2006 11:52 AM
10. The question isn't "Why aren't they publishing the cartoons?" We already know the answer to that one--they fear for their very lives. Newspapers aren't in the freedom of speech business--they're in the advertisement and entertainment business. The real question should be "Why can't they just admit they fear for their lives?"

Posted by: Organization Man on February 10, 2006 04:22 PM
11. I don't think they do fear for their lives. They haven't caught on yet. They are still living in the la-la-land of tolerance. It looks to me like wake-up day may be coming. Their first prayer will be "Help!"

Posted by: ljm on February 10, 2006 05:24 PM
12. I'd have a lot more respect for the P-I/Times editorial boards if they simply said "We're scared to publish the cartoons because there is too much risk of some angry Moslem bombing us — we have a responsibility to our staff."

That would be honest.

Posted by: Raw Data Complex on February 10, 2006 05:53 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?