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.
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?
You are blaming the wrong people. Muslims didn’t make this decision. Leftists did.
If a few people died every time Christianity was insulted, they wouldn’t publish it.
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.
Leftists did to placate Muslims.
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.
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.
ping
ping
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.