Patterico's Pontifications

2/6/2006

Identity Politics and Selective Media Sensitivity to Religious Feeling

Filed under: Media Bias,Scum — Patterico @ 9:46 pm



I am overdue linking Jeff Goldstein’s post on the Mohammed cartoons and identity politics. Excellent stuff as usual.

By the way: since I’m lacking a high-speed Internet connection and am stuck on a Treo, I am outsourcing my research to you, my readers. My assignment to you: search the archives of CNN — or the L.A. Times or any other news organizations that refuse to print the Mohammed cartoons — and tell me whether they ever ran a depiction of Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” piece, which portrays Christ submerged in urine.

Or did they refuse to depict images of the “Piss Christ” because it might offend Christians?

Yeah, I’m sure that happened.

A virtual high-five to the commenter(s) who find(s) proof of these media outlets’ hypocrisy.

UPDATE: That was as fast as it was predictable. Via See Dubya in the comments (through a guest poster at Ace’s) comes a link to a CNN report that shows a picture of a painting of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant poop. CNN is thus revealed to be a pack of shameless hypocrites, and aren’t we all surprised . . .

62 Responses to “Identity Politics and Selective Media Sensitivity to Religious Feeling”

  1. Close enough? Here’s one of Ace’s guest bloggers with a CNN report on the poop-smeared Virgin Mary painting by Chris Ofili.

    See Dubya (5073f6)

  2. The OC Register of course did not show the pics but did come out today with a tepid editorial against the violence. It’s events like these that have a chilling effect on free speech.

    Patricia (2cc180)

  3. This entire Danish cartoon ruckus was apparently ginned up by the Iranians because Denmark is about to take over the chairmanship of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA)–the outfit that’s been inspecting Iran’s nuke infrastructure.

    Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84)

  4. Correction! I should have said:

    This entire Danish cartoon ruckus was apparently ginned up by the Iranians because Denmark is about to take over the chairmanship of the United Nations’ Security Council. One of the first items on the agenda will be the February 4 referral of Iran to the Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Commission–the UN outfit that’s been monitoring Iran’s nuke infrastructure.

    Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84)

  5. That also should be: the International Atomic Energy Agency–not Commission.

    Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84)

  6. I remember the LA Times publishing Andres Serrano’s hate art piece twice in their print edition. (I’m less certain of the details, but I think it was a large image in the Calendar section and smaller image, probably on a different day, and possibly in some other section.)

    Jerome Parrot (b71a00)

  7. Aw, c’mon. If the media did not show the pictures of the “Piss Christ” there would have been cries of liberal bias – the pictures in the media brought the right together, didn’t they? Wouldn’t it have been claimed that the liberal media wasn’t showing us the truth if they refused to show them?

    Also, aren’t you the menacing instigator Patterico? Have you forgotten that there are millions of Muslims who live here in the US? So you want to start riots here? Over a cartoon? For what purpose? To then condemn the Muslims here? How noble.

    Jeff Goldstein has no credibility anyway. He was caught in the lie about NSA spying; trying to defend its secrecy by saying that no one knew that the eavesdropping was going on. The only trouble was, Dubya had been bragging about eavesdropping for some time. What a maroon. Goldstein’s a mindless partisan hack. http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19627/

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  8. The reason CNN showed the dung-smeared Mary is that religious Christians weren’t going to burn down CNN-Atlanta or off Wolf Blitzer over it. This is called “principle.”

    Attila (Pillage Idiot) (dfa1f1)

  9. “Or did they refuse to depict images of the “Piss Christ” because it might offend Christians?”

    If you’ve ever seen the image it isn’t that offensive. Whats offensive is when you find out the name. Hard to talk about it without that.

    actus (ebc508)

  10. Not offensive actus? Maybe if you don’t understand what you’re supposed to be seeing, but yeah, it’s offensive.

    Maybe the LATimes (and others) refused to run the images because there is a specific prohibition in Islam against depicting Muhammed, but Christians have no specific rule that says you can’t submerge the image of Christ in urine (as if that doesn’t fall under any number of rather more general injunctions, found in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament). It’s a double standard, actus. No way around it.

    Pysberian, your point is a good one. The rationalization that led the DogTrainer and others to refrain from printing the cartoons depicting Muhammed is of a piece with CNN’s rationalization of its non-publication of stories which would have reflected poorly on despotic regimes (Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Castro’s Cuba). If it subjects the newsies to risk, even the risk of losing preferred access, then by all means, don’t run the story. Remember that the next time some blow-dried mouthpiece goes on about “speaking truth to power”.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  11. “Maybe if you don’t understand what you’re supposed to be seeing, but yeah, it’s offensive.”

    That’s my point. If you don’t know the title, the picture isn’t that bad. But once you’ve been told the title, the offense has been made. If anything showing the picture reduces the offense. I had first imagened a picture of a dirty bucket on a dirty floor. Nothing like the image I saw.

    actus (ebc508)

  12. It’s hard to believe anyone can make the argument (with a straight face) that they are being sensitive to religous people by not showing the Muslim cartoons when these are the same people showing various depictions of Christ which are usually not favorable to organized Christianity. Now there are papers in the Middle East having a contest for Holocaust cartoons, ostensibly to show support for free speech. What they don’t say is that they run anti-Jewish cartoons all the time and their leaders have refuted the idea that the Holocaust even happened. How is it outrageous for them to now draw cartoons?

    sharon (a02134)

  13. Is “psyberian” Latin for “dip?”

    eddie haskell (51058c)

  14. Pysberian is an example of Folk Marxism and the fundamental un-American actions of the Left.

    Yes. Un-American. The essence of America and American identity is the contract between the people and the state, with individual rights and responsibilities. As Dr. King, said, the content of your character not the color of your skin. Or the religion you belong to.

    You might be offended by Piss Christ. Or Robert Mapplethorpe. Or Madonna. Or Bill O’Reilly. Within the American system you have the opportunity to make your feelings known, publicly. You can call for a boycott, organize (peaceful) protests, use the court of public opinion. You do not have the right based on “identity” such as Muslim, African-American, or whatever favored group to forbid publication of things you find offensive.

    That is as un-American as Joe McCarthy going around smearing people as Communist spies based on innuendo and gossip.

    In the 1950’s the fundamental threat to American’s liberty came from the right, today it comes from the Left in the guise of Folk Marxism and identity politics and rights that supersede the individual rights of Americans under the Constitution. Freedom of Speech means exactly that, there is no “group rights not to be offended” in the Constitution.

    If Muslims are offended in this country they are free to peacefully protest. If they threaten violence or carry it out they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

    The Left is simply incapable of defending the American way of life. Which includes free speech no matter how offensive. Un-American? Yes they are.

    Jim Rockford (e09923)

  15. The discussion, and all allegations of media bias, miss the deeper point. Before we get too far into (a) lambasting a newspaper for being inconsistent, or (b) for inflaming emotions through their publication of cartoons, a gut check needs to take place on what freedom of speech is.

    The decision to publish (cartoons, any expression) is an individual one. It isn’t a group decision, and there isn’t a group cost-benefit calculus or policy that bears on this decision. That individual decision is protected, not subject to equal time requirements, nor to any considerations of what is ultimately best for the public welfare.

    The media have tried to shy away from the brave stance to which they are entitled, choosing to sell themselves as “fair and balanced” (this criticism goes way beyond just Fox however). By backpedaling on their constitutional right to take (and stake its own business interest on) a particular position, they have brought criticisms like Patterico’s and Psyberian’s on themselves.

    We should remember this in our criticisms of any media outlet that publishes or does not publish the cartoons. The media may in some gauzy, collective sense be public, but they consist of various individual actors – this is the only sustainable way to see them. (emphasis to stress the plural nature of the media) Among other things, we are seeing that congolomeratized, institutionalized media has no identity and no soul.

    biwah (f5ca22)

  16. “The Left is simply incapable of defending the American way of life. Which includes free speech no matter how offensive. Un-American? Yes they are.”

    Agreed. Lets bomb Al-Jazeera.

    actus (ebc508)

  17. Actus writes:

    That’s my point. If you don’t know the title, the picture isn’t that bad. But once you’ve been told the title, the offense has been made. If anything showing the picture reduces the offense. I had first imagened a picture of a dirty bucket on a dirty floor. Nothing like the image I saw.

    So, if we saw the picture without knowing what the yellow liquid in which the crucifix was submerged happened to be, what would we think? Mountain Dew™? Kerosene?

    As a good Catholic boy, I’m trying to think of a yellow liquid in which one would submerge a crucifix, and then take a photograph of it, claiming it to be art, which I would think wasn’t meant offensively.

    Dana (71415b)

  18. As a good Catholic boy, I’m trying to think of a yellow liquid in which one would submerge a crucifix, and then take a photograph of it, claiming it to be art, which I would think wasn’t meant offensively.

    Really good beer, perhaps? Or maybe Acthole wants you think Piss Christ was symbolic of Jesus’s can-do spirit, making lemons into lemonade?

    Xrlq (ffb240)

  19. Jim Rockford, you talk as if I believe that printing the cartoon should be illegal. That’s totally wrong. In fact, in another post’s comment not long ago I even admitted that I disagreed with a Kos contributor who wanted to try to silence Ann Coulter by claiming that the things she has said are illegal.

    I just don’t believe it would be a smart move to print the cartoon, that’s all. But I am against making it illegal to do so.

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  20. Here is another angle that we’re missing here about this. Aren’t we supposed to respect other people’s religions? Those of you who are Christians should understand that unless you self-centeredly think it should only apply to your own religion.

    If it subjects the newsies to risk, even the risk of losing preferred access, then by all means, don’t run the story.

    TNugent, I don’t agree that the media should do that. I don’t believe that they do practice that much, either. Oh, they may play nice for a little while, to get the goods on someone or some country – only to lambaste them later. But I don’t believe that it is practiced often.

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  21. “As a good Catholic boy, I’m trying to think of a yellow liquid in which one would submerge a crucifix, and then take a photograph of it, claiming it to be art, which I would think wasn’t meant offensively. ”

    Resin? Water with coloring to achieve a reverent golden glow? If that exact image had been computer generated — no piss involved or even implied, that would be offensive? wow.

    “Or maybe Acthole wants you think Piss Christ was symbolic of Jesus’s can-do spirit, making lemons into lemonade?”

    For me it reminds me of how bland pictures with no title can be.

    actus (3acc4d)

  22. “That is as un-American as Joe McCarthy going around smearing people as Communist spies based on innuendo and gossip.”

    Which person did McCarthy accuse of being a communist who wasn’t? I forget.

    And while I agree that the press, while often considered en masse, are not monolithic in their thinking, it seems very peculiar that none of the really BIG media, especially those who felt they had a duty to, say, publish stories on the NSA eavesdropping on international calls to terrorists, didn’t feel they had a duty to truth to publish any of the cartoons. It just seems very curious to me that many of the same people who excoriated those objecting to the Book of Daniel feel compelled not to publish these cartoons.

    sharon (fecb65)

  23. Patterico, master-aesthetician, steps to the plate once more.

    “That was as fast as it was predictable. Via See Dubya in the comments (through a guest poster at Aces) comes a link to a CNN report that shows a picture of a painting of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant poop. CNN is thus revealed to be a pack of shameless hypocrites, and arent we all surprised . . .”

    I suppose Patterico’s reason for comparing Ofili’s work with the Danish cartoonists’ is that somebody was offended by each of them. One could with equal justification compare moustache-wearers Einstein and Hitler.

    My guess is that Patterico can in fact tell the aesthetic difference between the Ofili and a Danish cartoon, that he can in fact say why one might quite reasonably make distinctions between the two works on the grounds of their creator’s intentions and the works’ respective claims to the status of art.

    That he fails to do so here shows him to be just as much of a hack in aesthetic matters as he is in political ones.

    [Your argument is as aesthetically pleasing as the elephant poop covering the Virgin Mary in that wonderful work of art. Also, I paid you for your worthless opinion about Bush and Osama, so let’s have it. — P]

    m.croche (8e3bfc)

  24. It seems that in the midst of all this worldwide upheaval and controversy about the Mohammed cartoons, the American newspaper industry, and the media, no doubt encouraged by the tepid response to the events from our State Department, and out of “respect” for Mohammed, has decided that discretion is the greater part of valor, and have not published the aforementioned cartoons in any American publication.

    There are those that will say that they have not done so to avoid becoming the targets of the ire of the Islamofacists, and be subjected to death threats, suicide bombing attacks, arson and the like. Others that they just simply did not wanted to throw more “fuel into the fire.”

    However, I am of the opinion that our having had the courage to re-print them, which apparently we haven’t (last I heard I think we still had “Freedom of Speech” in this country), as so many publications in other Nations throughout the world have, would not have made much of a difference to the security of our cities, which have not been attacked again since 9/11 not because of the restraint or benevolence of Osama, the Islamofacists, and the terrorists, who hate us now even more than ever, and not only wish to nuke every city in America (along with Israel) off the face of the earth, but are actively working on, and desperately trying to develop, the means of doing so, but because they have been thwarted by our heightened vigilance, and aggressive terrorist counter-measures, as the NSA wire-tapping, that the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, and other of our espionage agencies have implemented since then; nor would it have increased the danger to our troops any more than all the inflaming, scandalizing , and demagoguery on the Press by the Left and the Democrats over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and the alleged Guantanamo Koran toilet paper incidents, already have, which not only exacerbated the violence in Iraq but cost the lives of many, which should make very proud those “righteous” persons responsible for making such incidents public, who are as much RESPONSIBLE for the resulting deaths, as the Islamist thugs who carried them out, and who beheaded Nicholas Berg!!!

    But now, “to take the cake,” it seems that there are some Left wing nuts and some Democrats in Washington, who would not only stop at this cowardly restraint on the part of our Press, but want to pass “Legislation” prohibiting “disrespect to Mohammed,” alleging that the very same “First Amendment;” behind which they hide and cower, to call the United States a “Terrorist Nation” because of the War in Iraq, and President Bush “…a worse Terrorist than Bin Laden,” to openly denigrate the men and women of our Armed Forces and soil the Hallowed Memory of those Fallen in this conflict, calling and shouting for our defeat and withdrawal in Iraq, and that have engaged in every imaginable sedition, and aiding and abetting of the enemy possible, short of “physical” aid; “does not provide for the freedom to disrespect someone’s beliefs”!!!

    This, amazingly, coming from the very same people that cannot abide any obscure, barely legible and overgrown, granite monument, donated decades ago by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, of the “Ten Commandments” anywhere near a Courthouse, who have vehemently fought to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency, God from the Pledge of Allegiance, who have made of Christmas the “Winter Solstice Holiday,” and that viciously attack and repress anything that even remotely smacks of “Christianity” !!!

    So, it seems that if these individuals get their way while every trace of our Judeo – Christian Traditions will be completely obliterated from the public forum, and Jesus is made into the subject of irreverent Rock Operas, lampooned in South Park cartoons on TV, mocked by the impersonation of Rapper Punks, represented on “works of art” on a crucifix immersed in the “artist’s” urine, and maligned, denigrated and insulted in every imaginable manner, yet by law, wether we believe in him or not, we will be forced to “respect” Mohammed?!?

    In the face of this travesty, one must ask: with “Friends” like these in America, particularly in Washington, who needs Jihadist enemies??? Bin Laden must be snickering in contempt and delight!

    As to our European “Allies,” it is indeed a sad day for Western Civilization, and indeed in particular for the people of Scandinavia, that we all have become so “emasculated,” and “Politically Correct” that we allow these Islamist thugs to tell us what we can say or not say in our own houses, and allow them to proceed to impinge on the Sovereign territories of our Embassies and burn them with impunity!!!

    What a difference from their Viking Forefathers, the sight of whose sails on the horizon struck fear into the hearts of these very same people, and sent them scurrying like rats up the hills away from the coast!

    A Muslim demonstrator in London carried a sign that read: “The War on Terror is a War on Islam.” Obviously this was not a
    comment by a Western “bigot.” No one could have framed the essence of this cultural conflict better or more bluntly precisely!
    Other signs read: “Freedom go to Hell,” and “Massacre those who insult Islam” (inhuman!) :

    http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/02/british_urging_1.php

    To any impartial observer, not blinded by having being brain-washed since earliest childhood by his or her loving, and devout mother, that a Muslim’s only purpose in life is to grow up to blow himself up in order to kill as many Jews and Christians as possible, even if it means having to also kill other Muslims in the process, it becomes dumfounding how the followers of the so much touted “Religion of Peace,” can consistently behave in such a savage manner, and wreck so much havoc, death and destruction on the slightest pretext! Is it perhaps that there are not two Islams, the one of extremism, suicide bombings, terrorism, and violence, and then the “Religion of peace,” of tolerance and moderation, but that we are the ones that in our multi-cultural, politically correct wishful thinking, have
    created in our eyes this fictional, embellished illusion of a Peaceful, moderate Islam, which in reality does not exist? Perhaps this is the reason why there is very little outcry, if any, against all these atrocities from so called “moderate Muslims” across the world, as so many Liberals wonder in their delusions!

    If indeed Islam is a “Religion of Peace” it would do Muslims well to emulate the words in the Koran, every verse of which, ironically, begins with “Blessed be Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” and be “merciful” and “compassionate,” even as Allah is “Merciful and Compassionate,” instead of engaging in the genocide they have unleashed upon humanity, almost unceasingly for thirteen hundred years! And don’t just say it is “Cultural Clash” with the on the West either! Look at Darfur!!!

    At any rate, as the demonstrations and the violence continues throughout the Muslim world: the burning of Embassies, the murdering of Priests, such as Father Andrea Santoro, slain by an Islamist youth in his Church in Trabzo, Turkey, the killing of Christians and Jews, the kidnapping of European Nationals, the burning of flags, and all the mayhem, the blinders of many Europeans, who now know in the flesh the fear and apprehension with which Israelis have learned to live on a day to day basis, and who formerly sided with the Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and who considered the PLO “Freedom Fighters” instead of terrorists, has been lifted. However, after so many decades of Secularist, Liberal-Progressive “Political correctness,” it is doubtful that they will do much in response save for some wringing of hands, and seeing as part of these demonstrations has been to institute a total boycott of European products, the most likely reaction from the EU will be to counter with an European boycott of imports from some of these Muslim Nations, and from the Palestinians, but in the case of the Palestinians, being that the only things they export are suicide bombers, kidnappers, and terrorists, and the Europeans obviously would not want to import that in the first place, there is really nothing to boycott!
    Really sad!

    Althor

    Althor (71415b)

  25. Which person did McCarthy accuse of being a communist who wasn’t? I forget.

    What? Surely you remember all those brave American citizens who were wrongly (or rightly, who cares?) smeared as Communists by the House Un-American Activities Committee led by Senator McCarthy? You’d think more of us would remember that, seeing as Senators don’t usually join House committees.

    Xrlq (839872)

  26. Antique Media Fear?

    As Patterico has noted, the Antique Media has championed and published art offensive to Christians, but if they cannot publish cartoons, do not expect ever to see a “Piss Mohammed”.

    Sierra Faith (51b069)

  27. The NY Times declined to print the Dane cartoons out of respect or sensitivity to Muslims (I cannot recall the exact wording). The Ofili work involving elephant dung and genitalia across a painting entitled “The Holy Virgin Mary” was completed in 1996:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/gallery/image/0,8543,-11504640117,00.html

    Many Christians expressed public outrage. Nonetheless, the Brooklyn Museum included it in a 1999 exhibition and the NY Times covered it here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/library/arts/092899brooklyn-museum.html

    I suspect the picture in the above was in the printed version, but I have no proof. Christians attacked the public funding of the museum, not the people and buildings and the NY Times was gleefully all over it in First Amendment high dudgeon. All their follow-ups on coverage included a 12 pix slideshow with the offensive piece #9 of 12. Here’s one example:

    http://www.nytimes.com/library/arts/100199sensation-art-review.html

    jim (a9ab88)

  28. Actus wrote:

    “As a good Catholic boy, I’m trying to think of a yellow liquid in which one would submerge a crucifix, and then take a photograph of it, claiming it to be art, which I would think wasn’t meant offensively. ”

    Resin? Water with coloring to achieve a reverent golden glow? If that exact image had been computer generated — no piss involved or even implied, that would be offensive? wow.

    “Or maybe Acthole wants you think Piss Christ was symbolic of Jesus’s can-do spirit, making lemons into lemonade?”

    For me it reminds me of how bland pictures with no title can be.

    Sounds like it wouldn’t have been “art” at all without the liquid named, doesn’t it?

    I’d say that you were really reaching on this one, A.

    Dana (3e4784)

  29. “I’d say that you were really reaching on this one, A.”

    Reaching on what? I’d stick by my claim that without that title, that picture would go nowhere.

    actus (3acc4d)

  30. All this aside…did you all catch the fact that an Egyptian newspaper published the pictures five months ago….and holy cow…now riots, no burning of embassies, no mysterious stocks of Danish flags to be burned – all in all – no controversy.

    Isn’t it interesting that when some radical mullahs from Denmark make their way across the ME showing the pictures to leaders of other radical groups (and of course adding a few of their own), we get “spontaneous” (yea right) riots? Isn’t it interesting that these same clerics claimed that Denmark had decreed that, “Muslims do not have the right to build mosques in Denmark, and repeated other ridiculous lies to foment discord and ridicule the Danish government”? (See the article here)

    And right at the time that Iran is coming under the threat of referral to the UN Security Council.

    If it weren’t for the fact that the pictures were published 5 months ago, I might be convinced that there is no underlying motivation. But the timing seems to convenient.

    Specter (466680)

  31. A: The problem is that you have assumed it could ever have been presented without a name. The “artist” named it specifically to insure that no one could fail to notice what it was or what he intended. Given that this was subsidized “art,” he had no choice but to use the name, to make sure it got the widest possible exposure — something he succeeded in accomplishing.

    In effect, the name is part of the whole.

    Dana (3e4784)

  32. Gentlemen, GENTLEMEN!

    The point is not to determine whose offensive art is more offensive but rather, to determine whose REACTION to the offensive art is CRIMINAL.
    You offend the JCS with a cartoon about a veteran amputee and you get a letter calling you unamerican…Not an airstrike on your home or a mob out in front of your house.
    There can be NO Condoning the actions of the Muslim world in response to one mans opinion. None. Plain and simple, they are wrong in burning, threatening and intimidating people. And it must stop. Offense to a Muslim is no more odeous than offense to any other human. They need to get over it NOW.

    paul (8838ff)

  33. “Isn’t it interesting that when some radical mullahs from Denmark make their way across the ME showing the pictures to leaders of other radical groups (and of course adding a few of their own), we get “spontaneous” (yea right) riots?”

    Who are you quoting when you put ‘spontaneous’ in quotes?

    actus (3acc4d)

  34. actus,

    I added the quotes for emphasis. But if you want some back up check out the Guardian article here.

    Specter (466680)

  35. “But if you want some back up check out the Guardian article here.”

    I want to know who thinks these are unplanned? having been involved in protests, I know they all take quite a bit of work.

    actus (3acc4d)

  36. Paul makes the case perfectly clear:

    “There can be NO Condoning the actions of the Muslim world in response to one mans opinion. None. Plain and simple, they are wrong in burning, threatening and intimidating people. And it must stop. Offense to a Muslim is no more odious than offense to any other human. They need to get over it NOW.”

    However, the point that many seem to be missing, or CHOOSE not to see, is that in fact Islam IS NOT A “RELIGION OF PEACE” but one of violence,
    intolerance, and compulsion, as Colonel Oliver North recently expressed on TV to the horror of the “terminally Pollitically Correct,” and that it is not up to us to bend backwards and make allowances to the Muslims for their intolerance, but for them to do some soul searching, and face the reality that in today’s global, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, largely democratic world, they are the ones that must come to grip with modernity and REFORM Islam, rather than launch a never-ending Jihad against every other non-Muslim in the planet, and try to impose by violence their barbaric beliefs on everyone else, which will not only result in the bloodiest conflict the world has ever known, but which will eventually result, by necessity not choice, in the rest of humanity having to neutralize them, if any peace or stability is ever to be attained.

    Now perhaps, many will understand the motivation why the Serbians, who were a Kingdom and a Nation long before many of the other later Kingdoms of Europe were even defined, and who have suffered the oppression, and despotism of Islam for a thousand years, reacted the way they did in the Balkans, as condemnable as their actions may have been to us!

    At the expense of being callous; but then no more so than those Muslims calling to “Massacre those who insult Islam” because of a meagre,
    insignificant cartoon, or those that killed almost three thousand innocent people in the Twin Towers, who had nothing to do with Israel and the Palestinian conflict, while exuberant Palestinian men, women and children danced for joy and passed sweets around on the streets of Gaza in celebration of their deaths, or the ones who killed the innocent school children they had taken hostage in Beslam, or those ingrates that blew themselves up in the London Tubes killing 56 innocent people, in a Country which had opened its arms in welcome and offered them refuge from
    the oppressive regimes of their fellow Muslims back home, or who have so consistently flung God’s gift of life in his face, willing to blow themselves up in order to do whatever harm they may to any Christian or Jew, even if it means killing other Muslims; I will sarcastically say that perhaps we were a bit hasty in sending Milosevic to be tried at the Hague…we may have need of him!

    Althor

    Althor (d8da01)

  37. The LA Times refrained from printing the cartoons because the editors did not want to incite further violence.

    I realize that you good Christians had your feelings hurt by reproductions of controversial, artworks by CNN, NYT, LAT. It’s hard to have your fairy tales and baby jesus fantasies blasphemed. Like finding out there is no Santa Claus.

    If running a picture of your Virgin Mary depicted in shit was enough to compel you to burn down buildings and fire your guns into the air, I’m sure the media would have refrained from publishing those pictures.

    There are principles (free speech, equality, cvil liberties, religious tolerance). And there are consequences (people getting killed, embassies getting burned down.)

    This hardly rises to hypocrisy. It is a matter of the editors putting the latter ahead of the former, in the interest of maintaining peace and avoiding added bloodshed and destruction.

    jmaharry (3991f5)

  38. Ok, so it seems Jmharry, that according to your world view, and since, to quote you:

    “There are principles (free speech, equality, civil liberties, religious tolerance). And there are consequences (people getting killed, embassies getting burned down.)”,

    and Muslims will resort to the latter at the drop of a hat, that it follows that for meek, innocuous Christian oafs to have people like you, not blaspheme their “Baby Jesus fantasies and fairy tales” and respect them, they ought to also kill people, and burn newspaper buildings down, in order to receive the same sensitive, deferential treatment given their Muslim brethren?!?!

    You do make a lot of sense! Let’s do that with all sorts of religious points of view, and outlaw “pest extermination” since the killing, even of insects, is frowned upon by Jains!

    This is not about avoiding violence, this is about “political correctness” taken to the point of absurdity, and sheer cowering in the face of the Islamist threat!

    Althor

    Althor (d8da01)

  39. Your addled interpretation of what I wrote is confusing me.
    And your wanton use of exclaimation points is scaring me.
    I hope your handlers have taken care to hide any pointy or sharp objects the might be around.

    jmaharry (3991f5)

  40. It’s interesting how the logic changes here. In one case, the state should set aside the noble goal of desegregation in order to face the real threats faced by racial violence in prisons. In another case, the press should print pictures which have already been shown to inflame violence in order to support freedom of speach and the press.

    Personally, I think they should segregate prisoners until they find a better way of doing things, and the press should print the cartoons. But, I guess it’s not really all that logically consistent. 🙂

    Adam (40d1a3)

  41. When the Left made all of the scandalmongering, and the hooplah about an Isolated incident: “the Abu Ghraib pictures scandal” involving our military, which to boot they did not “expose” since it had already been in investigation by the Pentagon for months prior to their public disclosure, it widely publicized it to the four winds, and some even went to court to make more of the photos available for publication to incite further condemnation of our Military and of the Administration throughout the world.

    In that instance they were in the least concerned about how those very same “Muslim sensitivities” alluded to in the above comments, would be “offended, and the resulting violence that would ensue their publication, exposing our troopps to greater peril!

    As a result, not only was the violence exacerbated in Iraq, but “peddling” those pictures across the world’s media, cost the lives of many, which should make very proud those “RIGHTEOUS” persons (that is how they justify themselves, of course) responsible for releasing them, who are as much RESPONSIBLE for the resulting deaths, as the Islamist thugs who carried them out, and who beheaded Nicholas Berg!

    How come such Leftist hypocrites were not concerned about the “threat” to life and property (and indeed to our troops, and the War effort)posed back then concerning the release of those Abu Ghraib pictures, but are now quivering in their shoes, all apprehensive, and concerned about inciting Muslims over some insignificant cartoons blown way out of all proportion, and willing to sacrifice our “Freedom of Speech” to comply with Muslim intransigence and abuse?!?!

    Disgustingly amazing!

    Althor

    Althor (d8da01)

  42. jmaharry –

    You posted:

    ++++++++++++
    The LA Times refrained from printing the cartoons because the editors did not want to incite further violence.
    ….

    This hardly rises to hypocrisy.
    ++++++++++++

    Actually, you do not appear to have accurately restated the LA Times position. Here it is:

    ++++++++++++
    The Los Angeles Times sent this statement to E&P this afternoon: “Our newsroom and op-ed page editors, independently of each other, determined that the caricatures could be deemed offensive to some readers and that there were effective ways to cover the controversy without running the images themselves.”
    ++++++++++++

    So, I believe you are quite mistaken. The LA Times, the NY Times, CNN, etc. all knew quite well that the Ofili “art” objects (such as the elephant dung covered painting you cited) deeply offended a great many Christians. They printed and posted those pictures over and over again and still do in the name of freedom of the press, art, yadayadayadda DESPITE knowing they gave offense. (The dung one was infamous soon after creation in 1996 and the Brooklyn Museum exhibition was in late 1999.)

    Now let’s take a look at the definition of “hypocrisy”:

    +++++++++++
    Hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
    +++++++++++

    So, if the LA Times truly held the belief they professed, they would not have printed the Ofili pix. I think you are more correct as to why those organizations did not publish the current pix. However, I think Cox&Forkum got it precisely with their Feb 7 cartoon:

    http://www.coxandforkum.com/

    jim (6482d8)

  43. I agree, the LAT should have published the pix. I only mentioned their aversion to inciting more violence after I had talked to a couple people at the paper. I didn’t realize the paper had published an official position, which I think is weak, and difficult to defend.

    Given your definition of hypocrisy, I don’ think the paper is being hypocritical. I don’t think they’re being dishonest or false. It’s certainly inconsistent, though.

    jmaharry (3991f5)

  44. jmaharry –

    Good dialogue. It may be quibbling, but the definition is not mine, but from a dictionary.

    The hypocrisy is that the LA Times asserted that they did not publish the cartoons because they “would be offensive to some readers” when they published the Ofili ones knowing full well that they “would be offensive to some readers.”

    Thus their cartoon non-publishing rationale professed feelings or virtues that their Ofili publishing demonstrates that they do not, in truth, have.

    It looks exact to me.

    jim (a9ab88)

  45. Althor, since you brought up Abu Ghraib:

    do you consider the people who published the pictures to be more responsible than the people who engaged in the activities the pictures depicted, less responsible, or equally responsible?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  46. 44. I think the weak link in your argument is assuming what the inent or ‘feeling’ of the editors is/are. It’s plausible that they honestly don’t care that the pix of art were offensive to Christians, while they did care for the feelings of Muslims, which I think is closer to being inconsistent or disingenuous. So it’s not hypocrisy, since their being true to their values, inconsistent as they may be.

    Either way, as I said, the LAT’s explanation is lame. This is hard for me to admit, as I’m usually a pretty big advocate for the paper (in fact, it was Patterico’s million-word, error-strewn LAT 2005 recap that first drew my attention to this blog.)

    jmaharry (3991f5)

  47. As to Americans who are sure and certain they would never get disproportionately outraged, I have three words, “Janet Jackson’s nipple.” The offense and response are not equivalent, but level of disproportion to the reaction seems the same.

    Name a newspaper or cable channel that showed her lovely pink protuberance.

    Sen. Napoli (539a32)

  48. As soon as you show one death-threat (never mind actually killed person), violent protest, or destroyed affiliate office/transmitter caused by the threat of showing her lovely brown protuberance.

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  49. jmaharry –

    If that is my argument’s weak link, then it is a very robust argument indeed. 😉

    Let me direct your attention once again to the LA Times own stated reason for not publishing the cartoons:

    ++++++++++++
    “Our newsroom and op-ed page editors, independently of each other, determined that the caricatures could be deemed offensive to some readers ….”
    ++++++++++++

    They did not specify Muslims, just “some” of their readers which, it would seem, Christians would qualify as.

    I agree with you, though, that it is more likely that the LA Times does not care for the feelings of Christians and does care to avoid hurting the feelings of Muslims (they being the “some”).

    Christians protest killings, but Muslims commit protest killings. It’s Cox&Forkum, as I posted before.

    jim (a9ab88)

  50. Is it argued the media should always carry the offensive expletive or body part that creates firestorms of protest?

    What if standing policy forbade it beforehand?

    Sen. Napoli (539a32)

  51. Sen. Napoli:

    Are you really suggesting that the only reason there haven’t been mobs of Baptists or Methodists burning down the WBZ transmitters in Boston is that they didn’t quite go so far as to show Janet’s nipple (or some equivalent)?

    Do you really think that we’d see anything on the order of what we’re seeing in the Middle East if they had?

    Tell ya what—can you name stores that were burnt down because they were selling Penthouse or Hustler? Storekeepers who were killed because they carried Juggs?

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  52. In my neighborhood, there were stores burned down by a mob because they weren’t carrying Penthouse or Hustler.

    Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84)

  53. 47. Didn’t the national CBS network and all it’s locals broadcast the offending protuberance? If you missed it, see below:
    http://www.staticusers.net/janet-jackson-superbowl-breast/janet-jackson-superbowl-photo-stills.shtml

    Is that star thing available on ebay?

    49/Jim: Christians protest killings, but Muslims commit protest killings.
    Nice locution.

    Do you think the LAT could have made a strong argument for not running the cartoon? As in, something more measured, more accurate, and less hypocritical?

    “We aren’t running the cartoons because doing so would be a direct provocation to Muslims, esp. in Iran & Syria. We realize we have run cartoons and graphics that many have considered offensive in the past; however, in this case, we’re not running it out of concern for people and Danish embassies the world over. Besides, you can find it on the Internet.”

    They would of course dress the language up, to strike that editorial tone, but that’s the basic idea. Do you think then that would take them off the hook?

    Most other papers aren’t running them. Not even Wash Times. I wonder what their explanations are.

    jmaharry (74c3ec)

  54. How is it hypocritical or “selective sensitivity” by media outlets? They hide Janet’s nipples from the wardrobe malfunction convulsion, Mohammed’s likeness from caricatures belittling Islam and images of dismembered fetuses from placards waved at anti-abortion rallies. Mind you, the debate over partly-formed fetuses has also led to bloody conflict. Is it the case that these media calls on “appropriate” public images evinces a bias in favor of abortion rights? I don’t pretend none exists. Only that you need better evidence than that.

    Sen. Napoli (539a32)

  55. Apparently, the editorial staff of the Los Angeles Times didn’t go into journalism as idealists who wanted to change the world, after all.

    Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84)

  56. jmaharry –

    You may have seen that, when the publisher decided to pull the cartoons, the editorial staff of the New York Press resigned as a group calling it hypocritical:

    http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/02/ny-press-kills-cartoons-staff-walks-out.html

    The US newspapers’ actions are even more puzzling when one considers that there was no lack of eagerness amongst them for printing Abu Ghraib photos or flogging the sensational-but-thinly-sourced (and erroneous) accounts of flushing Korans at Gitmo. Yet both of those stories were guaranteed to cause the same Muslim outrage and demonstrations.

    The only thing that I can see different in the cartoon case is that the Muslim anger might have been against the newspapers and staff. Thus, the newsfolk might be delighted to posture “freedom of press” when it can be done snidely but safely, or can arouse anger against ones the newspapers are happy to see it against, but not against themselves no matter what, freedom of speech or not.

    Perhaps the LA Times could just come out and say that they feared for their own safety and that was more important to them than anything else, not accuracy, not First Amendment, not balance. You know, the same reason that Eason Jordan gave for telling only non-critical stories if Saddam’s Iraq all those years:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/890515/posts

    Oh, I might add, if there should be a newspaper that does not want the current Administration to appear vindicated or empowered — and I’m not saying that there is any such, mind you — then having the Islamic world demonstrate that they are intolerant of what US folk label as Constitutional rights and are a risk domestically might run counter to the newspaper’s own agenda. Many newspapers might feel conflicted on that point, even if they were personally brave. Just hypotheses, mind you.

    jim (e4dd75)

  57. If you’re seeking debate fodder, I can’t imagine a more inapt comparison than Abu Ghraib. The faces and equatorial regions of the prisoners were all pixillated.

    Did the Muslim world react to that as insanely as it did this past week? No.

    But that’s different than saying papers and TV news channels showed “selective sensitivity.” I don’t think the case is well made.

    Sen. Napoli (539a32)

  58. Sen. Napoli –

    You mistake my point entirely, and I DO think the Abu Ghraib comparison is apt.

    What angered the Islamics about those photos was not genitalia or faces, but that the activity was going on as portrayed. That is, that prisoners were being humiliated as part of interrogation. In their minds, it shamed them, or dishonored them as a whole. Already, there had been near-riots over minutiae such as who might have touched a Koran, if a soldier had burped in their presence after eating bacon, or entering mosques to capture snipers (oh, okay, I made the middle one up). This is a group who kill their own innocent daughters at any whiff of innuendo, all in the posturing of honor or shame.

    The Abu Ghraib photos were printed anyway, because the anger they caused would serve the papers’ agenda and the anger and danger they aroused would not be on the papers. In fact, they would put servicemen, diplomats, aid workers, etc at risk, but any deaths among those would only serve their agenda, as well. They call that a win-win situation, so the papers went crazy with them, pompously and self-righteously proclaiming freedom of the press responsibility, yaddayaddayadda.

    The practices could have been described. It was not even new news, as the Army had discovered it, conducted an investigation, began prosecution, done corrective actions. They were printed because they served the newspapers and did not put them at risk.

    Apt, indeed. Sad. Disgusting. But apt.

    jim (e4dd75)

  59. And papers “could have just described” the Danish cartoons, but many chose to reveal all but the disguised facial features of Mohammed.

    What’s your point?

    The same folks who protected identities of hapless prisoners while conveying the graphic abuses of Abu Ghraib, similarly conveyed the blasphemy (or satirical wit) of the cartoons, while sparing antagonized readers the prophet’s likeness.

    Hence, the two examples are really inapt as a means of demonstrating “selective sensitivity.”

    Sen. Napoli (539a32)

  60. 56. Jim: what about my speculative, raggedly-worded -but-essentially-to-the-point alternative rationale for LAT’s position (back in 53). Do you think that would have made their decision morally plausible?

    To take your points in order:

    I had not seen the item about the New York Press. I clicked through to your link. Looks like they took a principled stand. In that case, the publisher was hypocritical, in the opinion of the staff.

    Second point: I think you are veering into shakier ground when you bring up the Abu Graib images (and accompanying torture), and compare them to the non-publication of the cartoons.

    The fact that our guys were subjecting prisoners to inhumane, deviant treatment goes against our core values as a nation. That is certainly newsworthy. The publication of those images was entirely consonant with the principles of a free press, a moral and transparent society (ours), and free expression. I think we are better served by the knowing.

    (Your reference to the Koran-flushing bit is a canard. That was from Newsweek alone, as I remember, and not reported by a lot of media outlets. A small item in one faltering weekly; hardly “guaranteed to cause…Muslim outrage.”)

    Next point: I read the Free Republic piece. It contradicts your point, that CNN is or was a Saddam PR mouthpiece. Eason details the various mortal threats that Hussein made against his people, and then the consequent assassination of Saddam’s enemies related to CNN’s reporting. The CNN guys, far from being PC stooges, were reporting the truth about the crazy shit that was going on over there. This seems to be the opposite of your point. Am I misreading you here?

    Last (fuzzy) point: I have read this five times. Maybe it’s too late at night. I’m not clear on what your are saying. Not being sarcastic. I just don’t understand the point (maybe too many floating pronouns?) What point are newspapers are conflicted on? Ok, make that 8 times. I still don’t get what you are saying.

    Finally: It is a cartoon we’re talking about, fer kris’sakes.

    jmaharry (74c3ec)

  61. jmaharry and sen. Napoli –

    Late at night, I can relate to that. I’ll try again, though I may be no better at it this time.

    Why didn’t the papers publish the cartoons?

    One offered reason was that it “would offend some readers” on religious grounds. This is proven false because the papers knowingly then (and still do today) print pix offensive to “some readers” on religious grounds; the Ofili ones are definitive examples.

    Another offered reason is that it would put embassies, their personnel, etc at risk. This is proven false because the press published Abu Ghraib photos and then new ones every time they could pay folk to hand over more of them, even though that publishing was sure to cause riots, put embassy folk at risk, etc. Any claims that they had no idea the reaction would be so strong are shown to be dissembling when they published the next batches.

    Another offered reason was that they did not want specifically to offend Muslims and anger them. This, also, is proven false not only by the Abu Ghraib barrages but also by the Koran flushing story. The inescapable conclusion is that the press does not mind offending Islamics.

    So, why did the press not want to publish these cartoons?

    The answer can be seen in the Eason Jordan story, as it provides real insight into the thinking processes of the press. The press does not mind offending anyone or getting anyone angry. The press just does not want to put their own hides at risk on principle. Eason Jordan did not want to exit Iraq, as the monetary and intra-industry influence of CNN would be reduced by any principled exit from Iraq in the face of threats. Nor did Eason Jordan counter-threaten Saddam that CNN would vigilantly publish the real stories that would reveal to the entire world just what Iraq and the regime was. That same Eason Jordan was willing to slander the men and women of the US Army with deliberately and selectively targeting journalists (he could do that safely – true irony there), but economic advantage was enough for Jordan and CNN to practice dhimmitude and shill for that monster. Jordan knew full well that Saddam WOULD deliberately target Jordan and press if Saddam was angered.

    Back to the cartoons. The press declines to publish them because the anger it might generate would possibly be against the press itself. In short, they are cowards.

    Now, did I make myself clear?

    jim (6482d8)

  62. Nice site I found … Plan on coming back later to spend a little time there.

    Acne Laser (23c72e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1146 secs.