FEAR GUIDES MEDIA RESPONSE TO CARTOONS

Cath League ^ | 12 Feb 2006 | Bill Donohue

[Notwithstanding]

Regrettably, the decision by the media not to offend Muslims is motivated by fear, not ethics.

Whenever the Catholic League criticizes a work of art, cartoon, movie or TV show, we are told that (a) we’re the intolerant ones (b) what is offensive is in the eye of the beholder (c) art is supposed to make people uncomfortable (d) no one can criticize anything until they have seen it (e) protests have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech (f) it’s not real anyway, and (g) get over it. So why have Muslims been spared this lecture? Because the extremists in their ranks—and they are not a tiny minority—have shown they may respond with beheadings.

[Emmett McCarthy]

Well, being an Irishman, I'd figure out real quick that this 'allah' character was a phony. I'm stickin' with The One who's first recorded miracle was turning water into wine at the wedding feast.

[Emmett McCarthy]

Of course, the big difference is that, if some fringe group were to do that sort of thing and claim to be acting on behalf of Christianity and in the name of God, very public and decisive condemnation of their acts would come from all credible Christian leaders in a matter of seconds.

[kjo]

Historically, Mohammad (piss be upon him) was a country caravan, camel driver who married a much older widow whose caravan business it was. He inherited her money and got into desert politics. Led a gang, invented what the gangsters called a "religion" was responsible for the murder of thousands. He later became a pedophile. If you belonged to a religion like this would you want people looking into it?

[VOA]

FEAR GUIDES MEDIA RESPONSE TO CARTOONS

AND ideology.
A lot of media types are more in touch with radical Islamics
than they are with their readers.

Sort of like their continued love affair with Castro and other nice guys.

[The Fop]

How long before we hear some left wing artist complaining because some art gallery won't display their anti-Christian "art", and blaming it on religious Christians who they'll accuse of exploiting the backlash against the Mohammed cartoons for their own purposes?

[VOA]

He inherited her money and got into desert politics. Led a gang, invented
what the gangsters called a "religion" was responsible for the murder
of thousands.

Make that millions.
And today's Islamic row over some cartoons is fully in keeping
with the fine example of The Prophet.
One of his first victims was a poetess that he had assassinated.
Because she mocked him in verse.

Source: "Jihad In The West" by Paul Fregosi

[ApplegateRanch]

If the "newsies" keeping thinking Christians won't cut off their heads, they may be making a mistake.

Doesn't the Torah have something to say about stoning and blasphemy, whether by one of The People or a Stranger?

[ApplegateRanch]

Sort of like their continued love affair with Castro and other nice guys.

Ahh, like Senor Presidente Chavez & Iraq:

Hugo si;
Victory, no!

[RS]

"Here are links to three faked cartoons that are being used by the mohamedans to stir up strife."

Yep, and the mohamedans are being joined by many "on our side" who are helping them to beat the drums. At least the ones on their side KNOW that they are helping OBL to fullfill his dream of worldwide conflict.

[Notwithstanding]

This is the very same media that knowingly lied about what the Christian reaction (a massive wave of violence against Jews) to Gibson's "Passion" would be. Yet when the real religious fanatics (muslims) are exponentially more violent than anyone could imagine a modern day Christian riot might be, they get a pass.

[muawiyah]

Nope ~ the "newsies" didn't knowingly lie ~ they lied ~ but not knowingly.

They relish ignorance of religion.

[GOPJ]

Comment found on another thread:

The New York Times rushed to praise a frivolous Broadway play showing Jesus having gay sex with Judas, yet hasn't dared to reproduce a Danish cartoon making a serious point about the misuse of the teachings of the prophet Mohamed by Islamist terrorists.

[Notwithstanding]

Its enough to tempt one to curse.

[GOPJ]

Its enough to tempt one to curse.

Or to start believing the NYT's is the biggest hypocrite on the block...or both.

[ABN 505]

Our brave local rag "The Hardly Courant" is not going to make available to it's readers the Cartoons because if people want to see them "they can get them on the internet" and they wonder why the paper media circulation is doing a nose dive. They are driving away their own readership!

[VOA]

...not going to make available to it's readers the Cartoons because
if people want to see them "they can get them on the internet" and
they wonder why the paper media circulation is doing a nose dive

I heard just about those same words from a newpaper guy on TV a
few days ago.
And I had the same thought as you.

In a decade or less, there will be a lot less of old MSM.
And they barely seem to see it coming.

[The Fop]

That's because Christians are "opperssors" and Muslims are "oppressed".

.

[Notwithstanding]

But its funny - one of their excuses for their own continued existence is that not everyone uses the internet - either out of lack of access or lack of skills.

Speaking of the internet: the left's tired old Official Manual of Double Standards has pretty much been plastered all over the internet by grass roots internet users. We are on to their game. Its over. Fat lady is almost done with the last verse.

[TheCrusader]

"The media had no qualms about printing photographs at Abu Graib, knowing it would inflame Muslims against our soldiers.
But the same media won't publish cartoons for fear of inflaming Muslims against them. The media. Cowards".

Great post! This sums it up perfectly.

[Continental Soldier]

I agree with you about the MSM being made up of gutless twits. In this case, I really believe that those high profile reporters for the MSM failed to properly cover the cartoon controversy because they were just plain scared that some muslim maniac would show up at their home or office and slaughter them. MSM reporters are always brave in repeating attacks against those who may get angry, but won't kill them.