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.
The reason why Mohammed was depicted with a bomb in his head was because of things like:
And
In other words it was not an insult -- just constructive criticism.
Here are the 12 cartoons. None of them can be taken as saying you are a bad and stupid person for believing in a peace-loving God as moderate Moslems claim.
In other words as an insult.
While we have a right to print cartoons or anything else that various religions may find offensive, at one time in this country, editors censored themselves from doing so. To deliberately offend another's religion was considered indecent. No longer.
The answer is not that we should continue to offend all religions, editors should return to the practice of self-censorship and not offend any.
As far an I am concerned, the Danes played right into the hands of militant Muslims giving them something with which to stir up the entire Muslim world.
That Muslims threaten to kill people over this is a second issue. Their response as I have said previously is way, way over the top and is an outrage. Frankly, after 9/11, we should have ended immigration from the 26 Muslim countries, and returned all Muslims who were not U.S. citizens back to their nation of origin.
I would think it would have been more accurate and appropriate to have depicted Osama Bin Laden with a bomb in his turban, but that would not have been nearly as OFFENSIVE, now would it?
Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City, kill thousands.--->No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. --->No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenage girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. --->No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. --->No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. --->No Muslim outrage.
A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. --->No Muslim outrage.
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. --->No Muslim outrage.
Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. ---> No Muslim outrage.
Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. --->No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and buses. Over 700 are injured. --->No Muslim outrage.
Muslims involved in bomb attack on train in Madrid. 194 dead and scores injured.--->No Muslim outrage.
Muslims kill innocent tourists in Bali bombing.--->No Muslim outrage.
Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. --->No Muslim outrage.
Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. --->No Muslim outrage
Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the many shooting wars around the world. --->No Muslim outrage. Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. --->No Muslim outrage.
Newspaper in Denmark publishes cartoons depicting Mohammed. --->Muslims are outraged.
Something is wrong here.
What's motivating Bin Laden? How about the killers of Theo Van Gogh? How about those who are trying to kill Rushdie? How about those trying to starve out or enslave the blacks in the south Sudan? How about the suicide bombers in Israel? How about the killings in Nigeria? Thailand? The Philippines? Kashmir? Hmmmm, there must be something in common. Wonder what it could be?
Good points. Thanks.
BTW, I well understand how oppressive, intimidating and lethal some Muslims are AND the importance of FREE SPEECH . I've sacrificed a GREAT DEAL in the past seven years for the first amendment and I don't need YOUR lessons.
We're not going to war over a cartoon, but it seems they want too.
and I don't need YOUR lessons.
I think you might.
It just is amazing isn't it?!
I heard Michael Savage describe the latest terrorism by these terrorists as the new Chrystle Nacht. I can't say I don't disagree with that sentiment.
He's right, "night of broken blass" is upon us.
Should read = glass.
That's a keeper, with much food for thought.
The problem is that they won't print it. Just like they didn't print the innocuous cartoons.
The death of Theo certainly puts this all into perspective. Killed over a movie VS torching an embassy over pictures.
Many Muslims despise the west and want to destroy it, on that we can agree, though I thought 9/11 and it's aftermath made that perfectly clear.
I did agree with most of what you said in your previous post as well. Oddly 911 caused politicians to reach out to the Moslem world, and this strange cartoon fiasco has done the same.
I wonder if they even care anymore?
That may be the nub of it.
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.
