Showing cartoons isn't worth hurt to readers

Seattle Times ^ | 2/12/2006 | Mike Fancher

[Jefflg]

I would hope everyone would e-mail the times and let them know how you feel about this. I'm ticked off to say the least.

[Fenris6]

[68skylark]

I'm ticked off to say the least.

Don't get too ticked off at cowardly and illogical liberal arguments. It's not worth the heartache.

[Piranha]

The editor of the small Danish newspaper is the small boy who finally yelled at the emperor of multiculturalism that, in fact, the emperor has no clothes.

Craven Western newspapers can pretend that this didn't happen, but it can never be stuffed back into the box.

[ansel12]

"So our coverage has explored why Muslims generally abhor any depiction of the prophet, as well as the international context in which outrage has become violent.

We've done this extensively in the pages of The Times, and even more so at seattletimes.com."



You people want all those naked facts, but we know them, have already processed them, now here is how you should think on this story.

[Incorrigible]

How long before they run something disrespectful to Christians and then tell those that complain to be more tolerant.

I give it 6 months.

[nmh]

So can we EXPECT less Bush, Christianity and GOP bashing in the near future?

[peyton randolph]

The spirit behind this approach is that most of the time there are thoughtful, sensitive ways to inform readers.

---

Nice to see that the journalist elites are protecting our sensitivities. I'll remember that the next time they report on anything done by Bush, Christians, Jews, or conservatives in general. I'm sure the same sensitivity will be on display. /sarc

 

[PeteB570]

But do they publish cartoons reflecting God, Jews and Christians in a bad light? How about gun owners?

Or is it the only offended people they worry about are the peaceful beheaders of Islam?

[technomage]

We haven't published the cartoons because we believe they would needlessly and deeply offend a portion of our readers

Although I do not read the Seattle papers (in fact, I read no papers other than IBD), I would bet my bottom dollar that they have published cartoons that offend Christians, Jews, Catholics, Baptists, etc.

What a lame and infantile excuse! They are cowards, just like most liberals.

[Hildy]

And...it begins...

[bray]

Translation: We're Chickens!

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[muawiyah]

No one in Washington state could possibly be offended by anything as avant garde as a cartoon.

These guys want us to believe Washingtonians are "tender" and "sweet".

Gad!

[BenLurkin]

bump

[Dog Gone]

"I just don't understand the point of intentionally offending a portion of our readers."

Yet they do just that with their editorial cartoons everyday.

[trubluolyguy]

The Seattle Times recognizes that racial, ethnic, religious and other slurs are very hurtful to many readers, so we use them in the newspaper only when they are absolutely essential to the reader's understanding.

---

If it was piss Christ they would run over their own grandmothers to print it.

[BW2221]

The Seattle Times is so politically correct, it won't even print the nickname of the Washington, DC professional football team (Redskins).

Never let journalism stand in the way of political correctness.

[claudiustg]

---The issue for Muslims isn't just how he is portrayed but that he is portrayed at all.---

The Muslims do in fact portray the Prophet when and where it suits them. No offense, but they are idol worshipping primitives of the first order.

[Mustard Plaster]

These are the same people who don’t mind showing crucifixes photographed in human urine. I guess they feel only Muslims are capable of being offended