Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The NYT Doesn’t Publish Religiously Offensive Images, Except When They Offend Christians
Daily Caller ^ | 6/29/15 | Jim Treacher

Posted on 06/29/2015 6:14:20 PM PDT by markomalley

The staff of a newspaper can run any images they want, or refuse to run any images they want. They’re paid to make those decisions. And when the rationalizations they give for their editorial judgments are a bunch of crap, we can point out that they’re a bunch of crap.

Back in January, here’s what New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet told his public editor, Margaret Sullivan, about his decision not to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons after their staff was slaughtered by Muslim terrorists:

He said he had spent “about half of my day” on the question, seeking out the views of senior editors and reaching out to reporters and editors in some of The Times’s international bureaus. They told him they would not feel endangered if The Times reproduced the images, he told me, but he remained concerned about staff safety.

“I sought out a lot of views, and I changed my mind twice,” he said. “It had to be my decision alone.”

Ultimately, he decided against it, he said, because he had to consider foremost the sensibilities of Times readers, especially its Muslim readers. To many of them, he said, depictions of the prophet Muhammad are sacrilegious; those that are meant to mock even more so. “We have a standard that is long held and that serves us well: that there is a line between gratuitous insult and satire. Most of these are gratuitous insult.”

“Gratuitous insult.” The NYT tries to avoid gratuitously insulting people of faith. They had an international news story about people being murdered for creating blasphemous art, and that art wasn’t shown because it was gratuitously insulting. Dean Baquet chose not to offend the sensibilities of religious people.

Which explains this image from today’s NYT:

That’s a portrait of the Pope, made out of condoms. Get it?

You have every right to make a portrait of the Pope out of condoms. And if the NYT deems that newsworthy, it only makes sense to show the image. That’s what the story is about.

The same goes for the Charlie Hebdo story. Baquet can rationalize it all he wants, but he allowed terrorists a veto. He allowed murderers to dictate the content of his newspaper. And once the coast was clear, he forgot all about his high-minded excuses. He doesn’t need to worry about Catholics trying to kill him for offending them. They’ll just complain about it, and he’ll publish a “Look at the rubes” story about it, and nobody will get murdered or worry about getting murdered.

And so it goes, until the next time Muslim terrorists kill people for offending them.

Islam is the religion of peace. So watch your step.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; US: New York
KEYWORDS: antichristian; atheistagenda; demagogicparty; hatespeech; homosexualagenda; liberalbigots; memebuilding; newyork; newyorkcity; newyorkslimes; newyorktimes; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; waronchristianity

1 posted on 06/29/2015 6:14:20 PM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

So by their reasoning Piss Christ is not a gratuitous insult. Its just satire .

We sure bend over bsckwards to appease Muslims don’t we?

2 posted on 06/29/2015 6:18:30 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

You are blaming the wrong people. Muslims didn’t make this decision. Leftists did.

3 posted on 06/29/2015 6:23:35 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

If a few people died every time Christianity was insulted, they wouldn’t publish it.

4 posted on 06/29/2015 6:24:39 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (A free society cannot let the parameters of its speech be set by murderous Islamists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The Milwaukee Art Museum, which now owns the “Eggs Benedict” piece (not art as they call it) is underhanded and slimy sneaky in how they handled this. The Museum's largest fund raising event is the Lakefront Festival of Art, which was held this year on June 19-21. Now, after the event they reveal the Condom Pope Benedict POS will be on display and on top of everything proclaim that the festival this year drew in more new members then in previous years. One has to wonder how many of those new members would have joined if they had known about the piece of garbage that was going to be on display.

The Milwaukee Art Museum is a recently new and beautiful work of art by the Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava. It is a stunning building sitting on Lake Michigan in downtown Milwaukee and is worth a Google Image search. The museum, in my opinion, desecrated this wonderful civic treasure and might as well have smeared dog crap on its white walls and gotten the same results as the Condom Pope. I will never look at this building again and not think about how small and devious people have become.

5 posted on 06/29/2015 7:38:08 PM PDT by joemsewi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Leftists did to placate Muslims.

6 posted on 06/29/2015 7:55:22 PM PDT by Shimmer1 (The Sting of a Reproach is the Truth of it. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The museum bought the piece from homo-sexual rights activist Joseph Pabst for $25,000. It will display the portrait this fall.
My questions are:

1. Is the artist Niki Johnson a homo-sexual? (Yes it does matter.)

2. Is the museum director Dan Keegan a homo-sexual? (Yes it does matter.)

If Niki Johnson wanted to start a dialogue about aids she could could have done a work in condoms of a person in Sub Sahara Africa dying of aids. Then we would be talking about AIDS. Instead she did an image of Pope Benedict in condoms and now we are talking about Pope Benedict, which is exactly what she wanted in the first place. She didn’t want a dialogue about Aids to begin with, she wanted a negative dialogue about religion.

7 posted on 06/29/2015 8:15:41 PM PDT by joemsewi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Exactly. The cowards at NYT know the throat slitters would arrive within weeks of publication of anything remotely insulting to Islam. So, they continue to kick the “turn the other cheek” crowd.

8 posted on 06/29/2015 11:32:53 PM PDT by Trod Upon (Every penny given to film and TV media companies goes right into enemy coffers. Starve them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pocat


9 posted on 06/29/2015 11:45:03 PM PDT by timestax (American Media = Domestic Enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timestax
 photo f1e45c45-fbbb-4dc0-8535-6ea155c87d39_zpsj33lku8d.jpg
10 posted on 06/29/2015 11:45:18 PM PDT by timestax (American Media = Domestic Enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pocat


11 posted on 06/30/2015 2:50:44 PM PDT by timestax (American Media = Domestic Enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson