Skip to comments.NY Times Allows Atheists' Full-Page, Anti-Catholic Ad; Rejected 'Anti-Muslim' Ad in 2012
Posted on 07/04/2014 9:46:55 AM PDT by chessplayer
The Federalist's David Harsanyi pointed out the New York Times's clear double standard when it comes to advertising in a Thursday post on Twitter. The writer recounted that the liberal paper "rejected an ad aimed at one religion" in 2012, but printed a full-page ad in Thursday's edition from the far-left Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), which blasted the "all-male, all-Roman Catholic majority" on the Supreme Court for its decision in the Hobby Lobby case.
Harsanyi linked to a March 15, 2012 item on the ultra-liberal Think Progress blog that spotlighted how the Times "rejected a full-page anti-Islam advertisement submitted by anti-Muslim activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer." What Think Progress left out was the fact that Geller and Spencer's ad was a response to a previous anti-Catholic ad from FFRF, as libertarian blogger David Volokh documented at the time:
...Here is the New York Times' response to the [ad] submission, according to Geller:
Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in "a few months."
The Times is of course entitled to choose what ads to run. But, assuming Geller's account of the Times' response is correct, that response simply proves one of Geller's points: Almost no Catholics are likely to respond violently even to harsh criticism of the Catholic Church but enough Muslims are likely to respond violently to harsh criticism of Islam (whether the response is against the critic or against others) that the Times itself views such criticism as unsafe. There are plenty of peace-loving Muslims, but unfortunately there are also enough extremist Muslim thugs to affect what the Times is willing to publish.
The NY Times, the paper whose editors should have been arrested, tried for treason and executed over 50 years ago for tipping off Castro about the bay of pigs invasion which almost resulted in a nuclear war. And incredibly they pulled the same crap again during the gulf war and the war on terror. Yet they are still allowed to remain in business because according to liberals, freedom of speech is the same thing as treason.
The bigots at the NYT still sell newspapers?
It has been so long ago that I canceled I wasn’t sure.
A double standard by the NYT? Say it ain’t so! Oh the huge Manatee!
Regulate newsprint since it is an nonsustainable resource and is abusive to trees. Save the trees, outlaw newsprint. Easiest way to get rid of newprint media.
Typical Liberal: “My high school social studies teacher said that Catholics started the Crusades, like, ummm, back when Bush was President or something. She said that Muslims have never hurt anyone and they just want to be left alone to worship Jesus—the real one and not the one those Baptists worship.” </sarc>
Technically, the Catholic church is a minority religion in America.
So they’re attacking a minority.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
As Ben Franklin once said, "We must all hang together or we will surely hang separately!"
We are at war with an unholy alliance of Liberals and Moslems. Accept it and choose your side. It is to the extinction of the other.
I agree. God Bless!
It’s been obvious for years they hate Christians
Can a good counter arrguer. raise $70 Gs to offer a truthful ad. Just run the same ad the same picture of Sanger and just tell the truth?
That would be a better Whitney headline - if it gets rejected, as It would. Or run it
I tell my children the same thing I tell them about Obama; they do the work of the Devil.
Just a bunch of staurophobes acting stupid and showing their behind.
Staurophobia is the pathological fear/hatred of the Cross, eapecially of Him Who it represents.
The term comes from the Greek “stauron” (cross) and phobia which is an irrational fear.
I did not coin the word; another poster did, but it brilliantly describes the behavior of the NYT.
If it wasn’t for double standards, the NYT would have no standards at all.