Posted on 02/14/2006 6:28:43 AM PST by Tolik
American news media have suffered in recent years. Thanks to the Internet and talk radio, millions of Americans have ceased relying on The New York Times and CNN for their written and televised news.
But it is difficult to recall a greater blow to the credibility of American news media than their near-universal refusal to publish the Mohammed cartoons originally published in a Danish newspaper that have brought about worldwide Muslim protests.
This loss of credibility owes to two factors: dishonesty and cowardice.
Everyone and his mother knows why the networks and the print journals haven't shown the cartoons -- they fear Muslims blowing up their buildings and stabbing their editors to death. The only people who deny this are the news media. They all claim that they won't show the cartoons because of sensitivity to Muslim feelings.
Which brings us to the other reason for the latest blow to the news media's credibility: They are lying to us. If some politicians were telling lies as blatantly as the news media are now, the media would be having a field day exposing those politicians and calling for their removal from office. But, alas, what TV news station will criticize another TV news station? And what newspaper or magazine will criticize another newspaper or magazine?
So, without anyone in the media holding them accountable, the news media continue to believe they can fool nearly all the people all the time when they say they are not publishing the cartoons out of respect for Muslim sensibilities.
Why is this false?
First, major papers in virtually every European country have published the cartoons. It is inconceivable that European papers are less concerned with Muslim sensibilities than American media are. If anything, in Europe they are more pro-Muslim given their anti-Israel and anti-American views and given that they live in countries with far greater numbers of Muslims than live in America.
Second, the reason to publish the cartoons is not to offend Muslims; it is to explain the most significant current news event in the world. How can anyone understand the Islamic riots without having seen the cartoons that triggered them? If millions of Christians rioted after cartoons were published in the Muslim world, does anyone doubt that the Western press would publish them, or that it had the obligation to do so?
The argument that people can see the cartoons on the internet is specious. Anyone could see the photos of the abuse of Arab prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison on the internet, yet the news media presented these photos day after day for weeks.
Third, the American press has routinely published cartoons and pictures that insult Christians and Jews. The Los Angeles Times published a cartoon depicting the stones of the Western Wall of the Jewish Temple, the holiest site to Jews, as spelling out the word "HATE" and showing a religious Jew bowing down before it. And what newspaper did not publish a photo of "Piss Christ," the Andres Serrano work of "art" depicting a crucifix in the artist's urine?
American newspapers "insult" every group whenever they feel like it, but no one riots, burns and kills because of it.
Fourth, the ban on depicting Mohammed applies to Muslims, not to non-Muslims. It is remarkable that American newspapers, so frightened of any breakdown between church and state, are suddenly guided by Muslim religious prohibitions.
Fifth, the argument that publishing the images would inflame Muslims' passions is another coverup for cowardice. No American newspaper or TV news show exhibited the slightest concern with inflaming Muslim passions when they endlessly published and depicted Abu Ghraib abuse photos.
If the liberal news media in America -- conservative Fox News and The Weekly Standard have shown the cartoons -- admitted they feared being hurt if they showed the cartoons, one would have respect for their honesty, if not their courage. But the liberal news media's lack of courage coupled with their dishonest justifications make for a devastating commentary on American news media.
One should not be surprised. A few years ago, New York Times foreign affairs reporter John Burns reported -- to his great credit -- that some of the most prestigious American news organizations had made a deal with Saddam Hussein not to report negatively about his regime in exchange for being allowed to have a Baghdad news bureau.
When it comes to taking on conservatives, Catholics, evangelicals and the like, liberal news media are Supermen. When it comes to confronting real evil, however, the news media are Mickey Mouse.
Had they drawn and printed and ordinary picture of Mohammed and put it in a children's book, my opinion would be entirely different. I still recall a drawing of Mohammed in my gradeschool history book, he was on a horse, it was a side rear angle, he had a sword in his hand and was leading men in battle. However, that was not the case.
There are COUNTLESS more important disagreements the west has with Muslims. This was not one of them.
Through history, there have been countless caricatures depicting Mohammad and Islam and as far as I know, there were no riots, killings, threat of beheadings, bombings, property-burnings and massive violence like the one we are witnessing right now.
Here are some examples:
Medieval and Renaissance Christian and secular artists had no religious restrictions regarding depictions of Mohammed, and were free to show his face and body in their entirety.
This picture is of an early Renaissance fresco in Bologna's Church of San Petronio, created by Giovanni da Modena and depicting Mohammed being tortured in Hell.
By the way, in 2002, Muslims tried to destroy this painting by plotting to blow up the Church. To view more of these cartoons, click on this link.
As a matter of fact, the Danish cartoonists who created these cartoons are in hiding for fear of getting killed by the Muslims. Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker whose 10 minute film about Muslim women's life -Submission- was shown on TV in September 2004, was stabbed to death by an angry Muslim who thrust a note with Koranic verses into his body.
It's laughable to hear Liberals saying how much they respect Islam, thus the reason for not publishing these innocuous cartoons. How much respect could the Left have for a religion that is radically opposed to the heart of the liberal philosophy, that is: feminism, gays, and abortion? They also seem to disregard the laws governing individual rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and replace it with Sharia law when it comes to these cartoons freedom of speech being one of them.
As a free nation, we have the right to express our views, and if someone is offended by them, they also have the right to express theirs. They can protest, advertise, write letters, organize politically, and even boycott that which offends them. They are not, however, permitted to kill, bomb, rape, and destroy property to express their anger. In other words, civilized societies disagree and express their point of view peacefully.
Good post.
Very well said, Victoria.
Well, of course there most certainly was "Muslim outrage" following the events you listed: Muslims were outraged that they were the subject of "profiling" and the victims of "backlash."
Thanks.
I know. Thanks :-)
Nailed to the wall! Excellent!
---------------------------
Indeed, this crisis illustrates how completely irrelevant the MSM has become. Anyone with a mouse could have seen this pictures long ago. They are all over the place on the net. I agree this ongoing, everlasting story has more to say about the American media than about the Islamic world.
Not to mention that Mohammed is ONLY a prophet in the Islamic belief. Islam rejects the triune God belief of the Christians. Allah is the only holy and omnipotent one. Mohammed and Jesus are simply prophets. So worked up over a prophet?
The worst cartoons were made by a Moslem cleric (Mohammed humping a dog) and that cleric tried to pass it off as one of the Danish cartoons. So clearly some Moslems think so little of Mohammed to use his image profanely. He is only a prophet after all. What is more offensive is the death of the film maker of Submission. That insult actually hurt someone.
Excellent post Victoria, and great points you made!
Thanks Karen.
I didn't know it was made by a Muslim cleric. Thanks for the info.
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.