Posted on 01/14/2015 3:09:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The double standard laid bare. If you’re a devout believer of whichever faith and eager to see less blasphemy in the media, as many Americans are, there’s no other conclusion to draw here than, “I need to be much, much angrier.”
The image of the prophet Mohammed, however, seems to occupy its own category, with its own rules. Last week, Baquet told me via email that as editor of the Times he had to consider “the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet.” [sic] When I replied, “I just wonder about the Jewish family in Brooklyn,” Baquet responded as follows:
“I would really do some reporting — I did — to make sure these parallels are similar for the two religions. You may find they are not. In fact they really are not.”
Baquet’s argument, if I’m reading him correctly, is that a cartoonish depiction of Mohammed is more offensive, categorically, than a cartoon that depicts, say, anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews trying to fabricate a Holocaust that, per the cartoonist, never took place.
I don’t know if it’s categorical. As I read it, he’s not saying that cartoons of Mohammed are objectively more offensive than anti-semitic cartoons, he’s saying that the amount of rage they evoke in Muslims and Jews, respectively, is evidence that the former are more offensive to the aggrieved group than the latter. If Jews want the Times to take their feelings seriously, they can prove the depth of their injury by grabbing some AK-47s and machine-gunning a group of cartoonists. This moron is actually providing an incentive to overreact to blasphemy. Which is probably the closest he’ll come to acknowledging the real calculus in all this: To the extent that Times editors have more to fear from angry Muslims than they do from angry Jews, yes, it’s quite true that cartoons that offend each group don’t parallel each other.
This isn’t the first time recently that Baquet’s supplied a justification for terrorism, however unwittingly. John Sexton of Breitbart made a smart point last week after Baquet grumbled that other papers being applauded for running Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons weren’t running the most offensive ones. Quote:
“Have you seen them? They are sexual, and truly provocative. They are not the ones a handful of papers have run. Those are mild. If you really want to understand the issue, you would have to show the most over-the-top images,” he said.
What could Baquet have meant, wondered Sexton, when he said that to really “understand the issue” we’d need to see the most offensive cartoons? It sounds like he was saying that without seeing the most provocative images, you couldn’t hope to grasp why a couple of Muslim radicals might want to shoot up an editorial room. We need, in other words, to be fair to the terrorists if we’re going to start picking and choosing which images are representative of Charlie Hebdo’s oeuvre. If that’s not what he meant, what did he mean?
Dylan Byers of Politico, who squeezed the quote up top out of Baquet, notes at the end of his piece that “it stands to reason that if a free media has an obligation to not offend one group, then it has an obligation to not offend all groups — right down to restricting profanity in order to satisfy the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Right — that’s exactly what the Bill Donohues of the world are counting on in joining the media’s charade that this is about “sensitivity” towards Muslims rather than fear. You can fear one group while not fearing another but you can’t be sensitive to one without being sensitive to another and expect to be taken seriously. That’s why all the media outlets refusing to show the Charlie Hebdo cover today will also think twice about images that offend Christians and Jews from now on. The anti-blasphemy ethic will grow. And we’ll have jihadism to thank for it. If you don’t believe me, just read this. Exit quotation: “[T]he academic publisher has issued guidance advising writers to avoid mentioning pigs or ‘anything else which could be perceived as pork’ so as not to offend Muslim or Jewish people.”
Dean Bacquet, editor in chief of the NYT has held that post for less than a year (give or take a month). He is the first black person to have that job. We saw the results when the NYT printed the home address of Darren Wilson and gave directions for getting there.
Expect more of the same from this illustrious journalist.
Political correctness in action.
Libs get to pick and choose what is correct and what is evil. Then, they force everyone else to conform to their selections.
“Have you seen them? They are sexual, and truly provocative. They are not the ones a handful of papers have run. Those are mild. If you really want to understand the issue, you would have to show the most over-the-top images,” he said.
Were they more over the top than taxpayers being forced to fund putting a Christian crucifix in a jar of urine, and named with a profane title?
They SWEAR that they don't worship Mohammad but I've never seen them get this upset over offensive (or any) depictions of Jesus or Moses.
Put a Co-ExIsT sticker in a jar of urine (after you get the government to pay for it) and make sure the Islamic crescent is right up front.
I can tell you without undertaking the experiment:
"Fifty percent of this art is horrible. Fifty percent of this art is edgy and coooooollll...."
They’re just afraid of Muslims, fatwas and all. They don’t take aim at those who yell and scream and fight back, like blacks and homosexuals.
Cowards, all. Easy to target peace-loving people of faith, there’s no retaliation. Or their own self-hating Jews. But Muslims, hell no, they won’t go (there)
Have you noticed how radical feminists never say "male chauvinist pig" anymore?
It’s a nuanced distinction.
Good point. Muslims I’ve met will say Jesus is a “great prophet’
But interesting how they don’t seem quite so “offended” when Jesus is ridiculed or attacked or blasphemed
Possibly, or it could’ve been a barking moonbat DUmmie. There are militant libs on the web who try to uncover online identities for threats and retribution.
Yeah....it had a bizarrely scrawled return address on it..which as a bit scarey all by itself.
"Baquet’s argument, if I’m reading him correctly, is that a cartoonish depiction of Mohammed is more offensive, categorically, than a cartoon that depicts, say, anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews trying to fabricate a Holocaust that, per the cartoonist, never took place."
Not to mention...
An antisemetic cartoon denigrates Jews & instigates violence against Jews and Jewish places of worship, business, education etc.
Not much difference in the outcome yet the intent of the illustrators/editors/publishers/readers is very very different.
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.