The New York Times smugly explained to Buzzfeed why it refuses to rerun the "offensive" images of the Prophet Muhammad published by Charlie Hebdo: "we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities." So why has the Times previously run cartoons that offend Christian and Jewish sensibilities, without any apparent concerns?
At 4:45 p.m. Wednesday afternoon, the New York Times, teasing an item entitled "‘Dangerous Moment’ for Europe, as Fear and Resentment Grow," tweeted that "The Paris terror attack seems certain to accelerate the growth of anti-Islamic sentiment in Europe."
Consistent with a long-established nasty habit, the opening sentence of the report by Steven Erlanger and Katrin Bennhold has since been revised without notice, and is tagged as appearing on Thursday's front page. The headline is the same, but the first sentence now reads: "The sophisticated, military-style strike Wednesday on a French newspaper known for satirizing Islam staggered a continent already seething with anti-immigrant sentiments in some quarters, feeding far-right nationalist parties like France’s National Front." Yeah, those are Europe's biggest problems, not Islamic terrorism.
Following the deadly Islamic terrorist attack in Paris on Wednesday, major broadcast networks ABC and NBC joined other news outlets in not showing any of the controversial cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad from the Charlie Hebdo magazine during their evening newscasts.
Despite initially telling Buzzfeed that they would not be showing any of the cartoons, CBS News did go forward and displayed three of them on the air during the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley. The three were shown as part of a report by CBS News foreign correspondent Elizabeth Palmer from Paris that led off the broadcast.
Chait writes that “the Muslim radical argues that the ban on blasphemy is morally right and should be followed; the Western liberal insists it is morally wrong but should be followed. Theoretical distinctions aside, both positions yield an identical outcome.”
On Wednesday night, the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC ignored the contradicting statements made by President Obama in condemning the terrorist attack on the Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris as an attack on free speech, but stating in a 2012 speech at the United Nations that “the future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”
When it came to discussing the terrorist attack in France on Wednesday, the President struck a different tone from 2012 when it came to the freedom of speech and expression: “Our universal belief in freedom of expression is something that can't be silenced because of the senseless violence of the few.”
In an item time-stamped 4:11 p.m. ET at his "On Media" blog at the Politico, Dylan Byers wrapped up a post primarily about the Associated Press removing its "Piss Christ" photo from its image library by claiming, in reference to the Charlie Hebdo Magazine murders in Paris, that "Though there (sic) identity is as yet unknown, the masked gunmen are believed to be Islamic terrorists."
Here's most of Byers' post about the outrageous hypocrisy at AP, which shortly affter the massacre had publicly announced that it would not show any Charlie Hebdo Islamic cartoon images:
On Wednesday's Now With Alex Wagner on MSNBC, Eric Bates raised the specter of censorship by Christian conservatives during a panel discussion on the past Muslim backlash against Charlie Hebdo magazine – the target of an Islamic terrorist attack in Paris earlier in the day. Bates, a former executive editor for Rolling Stone magazine, cited Jerry Falwell's lawsuit against porn magazine Hustler in the 1980s as an apparent example of "religious fundamentalists of all stripes and of nationalities have this penchant to say, we want to be able tell you what you can and can't portray."
This afternoon, Matt Balan at NewsBusters covered Tony Barber's disgraceful evening (London Time) column at the Financial Times. In the wake of the terrorist attack at the French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo which killed 12, Barber argued that "some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten." In other words, after sifting out the myriad paragraphs of weasel words and historical rehashes, Barber was contending that these outlets should self-censor to protect jihadists' delicate sensibilities.
Balan indicated that Barber is an associate editor at the Times, so readers could very well have interpreted the columnist's take as speaking for the newspaper. That is not so, as seen in its house editorial:
Whenever a terrorist attack happens, it seems like the media jump through hoops to whitewash the incident to avoid using the dreaded “I” word. While it’s obvious to the public that the guy shouting “Allahu Akbar” during a televised beheading is probably not a practicing Methodist, the media would first speculate that he might be a white conservative, as they initially did with the Boston bombing. The latest deadly shooting on a French newspaper office that killed12 people is turning out to be another case of the media protecting radical Muslims.
Just yesterday, left-wing news blog Raw Story ran a story that asked why Fox News was obsessed with Islamic terrorist attacks. What perfect timing! Blogger Eric W. Dolan attacked Fox for blaming a beheading that occurred in September on Islamic terrorism.
After a massacre that killed at least 12 at the offices of the satirical Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo, the New York Times issued this tweet: "The weekly
#CharlieHebdo has long tested limits with its satire..." So the Times is the self-proclaimed arbiter of satire, at least when it comes to mocking one particular religion, Islam?
Sure, nobody expects The Washington Post Editorial Board to earn a “Profile in Courage” entry anytime soon. But with its Sept. 16 editorial on the systematic decades-long sexual abuse of children in Rotherham, England, the Board showed the same cowardice that enabled the Rotherham abusers.
According to the Post, “Sorting out why officials closed their eyes or looked the other way as an estimated 1,400 young girls were raped and brutally exploited from 1997 to 2013 will require Rotherham and the rest of Britain to come to grips with uncomfortable questions about race, class and gender.” But what about the uncomfortable questions about Islam? The editorial never mentioned that.
In one of a pair of Sunday posts at his web site, New England talk show host Michael Graham added an emphatic exclamation point to Brent Bozell's and Tim Graham's Saturday column condemning the cowardice and hypocrisy of Brandeis University's decision to revoke its commencement invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In the other, Graham roasted the Boston Globe for backing Brandeis.
Bozell and Tim Graham rightly pointed to the university's embrace of particularly nasty anti-Catholic and anti-Israel speakers. Michael Graham found yet another example adding toxic icing to an already rancid cake, and noted that three of its female graduates have achieved a unique level of infamy (links are in each original; bolds are mine throughout):