From Captain's Quarters:
We are being pissed upon by Per Nyholm
I think it was the long departed H.C. Hansen, one of last century's great Danish statesmen who once - while the communists were demonstrating in front of Christiansborg [Ed: the seat of parliament] - threw his gaze across the palace square and remarked: "I will not be pissed upon."
Then he did what was necessary.
I feel that currently my beloved country is being pissed upon rather too much. Denmark has not been neglecting its duties on the international stage. We have supported poor people with acts and advice, we have worked for peace, we have sent soldiers, policemen and experts to all the far flung corners of the world. We have democracy, a state of law and a welfare state. Not all is perfect, but we harbor no malice to our fellow man.
And yet Denmark is being pissed upon. The spokesman of the US State Department is pissing on Denmark, the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs is pissing on Denmark, the President of Afghanistan is pissing on Denmark, the Goverment of Iraq is pissing on Denmark, other Moslem regimes are pissing on Denmark. In Gaza, where Danes for years have provided humanitarian relief, crazed Imams encourage people to cut off the hands and heads of the cartoonists who made the caricatures of Mohammed for the Jyllands-Posten newspaper.
Excuse my choice of words, but all this pissing is pissing me off.
Read the rest...
Monday, February 13, 2006
Midwest Heroes
Power Line is a site I visit daily. It has a great article on a new TV ad featuring American servicemen from the Midwest who served in Iraq.
There is much more; read the whole thing.
"Midwest Heroes" is a straightforward defense of the Iraq war. Here are some excerpts; all narration is by the three servicemen:
There is much more; read the whole thing.
"Midwest Heroes" is a straightforward defense of the Iraq war. Here are some excerpts; all narration is by the three servicemen:
The media only reports the bad news, but American troops are making real progress, securing free elections and defending our country from radical al Qaeda terrorists who want to destroy Americans, starting in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is one of history's biggest mass murderers. The blood of a million people is on his hands, with countless more raped and tortured.
You'd never know it from the news reports, but our enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda--the same terrorists who killed three thousand Americans on 9/11, the same terrorists from the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, Madrid, London, and many more.
American troops overwhelmingly support the mission President Bush has given us.
Where do you want to fight terrorists? We want to fight them, and destroy them, in Iraq.
Virginian Pilot: Lying in the Headline
The headline read: Lawmaker questions the effectiveness of spy program. The Pilot did a cut-and-paste on an AP story. It isn’t until you get to paragraph three that the real story is told: the disclosure of the program’s existence in December in the NY Times (and the Virginian Pilot and virtually every other newspaper in the country) has undermined it s effectiveness. Peter Hoekstra, House Intelligence Committee Chairman said:
But if you are the headline writer in the Virginian Pilot, you can twist the story. You can lie via headline.
The Pilot has still not given its readers the information they need to judge the character of the “12 Cartoons.” How about this headline: The Virginian Pilot lacks the guts to oppose Islamofacism. But we don’t need a headline to know that.
"It's been across the media for the last 50 days. Does anyone really believe that, after 50 days of having this program on the front page of our newspapers, across talk shows across America, that al-Qaida has not changed the way that it communicates?"The story really is that the American press has rendered an important weapon in the fight against terrorism less effective. The reality is that the comments by Hoekstra are an indictment of the press.
But if you are the headline writer in the Virginian Pilot, you can twist the story. You can lie via headline.
The Pilot has still not given its readers the information they need to judge the character of the “12 Cartoons.” How about this headline: The Virginian Pilot lacks the guts to oppose Islamofacism. But we don’t need a headline to know that.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Bob Lonsberry: Why Can't We See the Cartoons?
SHOW US THE CARTOONS
Why can’t we see the cartoons?
The ones that have the Muslims burning down embassies and killing people.
Why can’t we see them?
What theory of the First Amendment is it that has kept the American news media from showing us the cartoons?
They talk about them. They condemn them. They say they’re really bad.
But they won’t show them to us.
Not the TV. Not the newspapers. Not any of them.
We’ve seen pictures of people having their heads cut off. We’ve seen dead Americans dragged through the streets. We’ve seen burned Americans hanged from a bridge. We’ve seen the American flag burned time and time again.
They even show terrorists’ videotape of American GIs being killed by roadside explosives.
But no cartoons.
It kind of makes you wonder about the “public’s right to know” and “all the news that’s fit to print.”
They report American military secrets. They give away information that weakens our national defense. They showed pictures of Abu Ghraib like they were going out of style.
But no cartoons.
And no explanation.
It makes you wonder if they’re being courteous or cowardly. If they’re afraid of offending Muslim sensitivities or of incurring Muslim wrath.
It makes you wonder what else they arbitrarily decide not to show us or tell us. It makes you wonder where they left their vaunted journalistic ethics.
Here’s the background.
In September, some guy in Denmark published some editorial cartoons featuring images of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Danish Muslims were minimally and briefly bothered by it. They had a small, peaceful protest march and that was that.
Then some imam sent the cartoons, and a couple others he added, and sent them to rabble rousers in the Arab Middle East. Then the governments of Iran and Syria got involved and the crap hit the fan.
Embassies burned, people were killed, a whole lot of upset and violence ran across Indonesia, the Middle East and all those “-stan” countries.
Because these religion-of-peace people didn’t like the cartoons.
And that’s been a big story for a week or so. Every night on the network news very somber idiots have told us all about it. Well, not all about it. They’ve omitted the “casus belli.” They talk about the cartoons, but they won’t show them to us.
Which seems to be a fundamental failure.
And it seems to put the various newspapers of Europe on much better terms with not just the freedom of the press but the courage of the press.
Initially, publishing the cartoons – five months ago in Denmark – was arguably the wrong thing to do. It offended Islam to make a point easily made in another way. Publishing them first was a questionable call.
But publishing them now is not.
Now it’s not commentary, it’s news. These cartoons are the root of an international incident which is costing people their lives every day. Relations across the world are shaken by these cartoons.
And it only makes sense that people – American people – be allowed to see those cartoons, if only to be better able to judge the propriety – or impropriety – of the worldwide Muslim response. Basic news judgment indicates that we ought to be able to see what all the fuss is about.
But nothing.
They have been published all over Europe. They have been published in much of Africa. They have been published in parts of Asia. They have been reproduced in the Middle East.
But they’ve been shown virtually nowhere in America. With our 24-hour news channels, with our three major network newscasts, with our “USA Today” and “New York Times.”
And nothing.
Oh, a few years ago they showed us pictures of a crucifix in urine. They show us singers dressed up like Jesus. They show us cartoons that make fun of the pope.
But nothing about Mohammed.
Which raises the question: Is there a double standard at play here, which puts Muslim sensibilities above the responsibility of the free press? Do the networks care more about Muslims than they do viewers?
Is this political correctness, another kissing of the Muslim backside?
Or is this outright cowardice? Are the American news organizations just spineless? Do they fear being targeted by Muslim protests or Muslim terrorism?
Are their principles so cheap that they can be sold over some silly editorial cartoons?
It seems so.
And that’s a shame.
If they were truly news organizations, they’d give us the news.
And right now, the news is those cartoons.
So why can’t we see them?
Why can’t we see the cartoons?
The ones that have the Muslims burning down embassies and killing people.
Why can’t we see them?
What theory of the First Amendment is it that has kept the American news media from showing us the cartoons?
They talk about them. They condemn them. They say they’re really bad.
But they won’t show them to us.
Not the TV. Not the newspapers. Not any of them.
We’ve seen pictures of people having their heads cut off. We’ve seen dead Americans dragged through the streets. We’ve seen burned Americans hanged from a bridge. We’ve seen the American flag burned time and time again.
They even show terrorists’ videotape of American GIs being killed by roadside explosives.
But no cartoons.
It kind of makes you wonder about the “public’s right to know” and “all the news that’s fit to print.”
They report American military secrets. They give away information that weakens our national defense. They showed pictures of Abu Ghraib like they were going out of style.
But no cartoons.
And no explanation.
It makes you wonder if they’re being courteous or cowardly. If they’re afraid of offending Muslim sensitivities or of incurring Muslim wrath.
It makes you wonder what else they arbitrarily decide not to show us or tell us. It makes you wonder where they left their vaunted journalistic ethics.
Here’s the background.
In September, some guy in Denmark published some editorial cartoons featuring images of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Danish Muslims were minimally and briefly bothered by it. They had a small, peaceful protest march and that was that.
Then some imam sent the cartoons, and a couple others he added, and sent them to rabble rousers in the Arab Middle East. Then the governments of Iran and Syria got involved and the crap hit the fan.
Embassies burned, people were killed, a whole lot of upset and violence ran across Indonesia, the Middle East and all those “-stan” countries.
Because these religion-of-peace people didn’t like the cartoons.
And that’s been a big story for a week or so. Every night on the network news very somber idiots have told us all about it. Well, not all about it. They’ve omitted the “casus belli.” They talk about the cartoons, but they won’t show them to us.
Which seems to be a fundamental failure.
And it seems to put the various newspapers of Europe on much better terms with not just the freedom of the press but the courage of the press.
Initially, publishing the cartoons – five months ago in Denmark – was arguably the wrong thing to do. It offended Islam to make a point easily made in another way. Publishing them first was a questionable call.
But publishing them now is not.
Now it’s not commentary, it’s news. These cartoons are the root of an international incident which is costing people their lives every day. Relations across the world are shaken by these cartoons.
And it only makes sense that people – American people – be allowed to see those cartoons, if only to be better able to judge the propriety – or impropriety – of the worldwide Muslim response. Basic news judgment indicates that we ought to be able to see what all the fuss is about.
But nothing.
They have been published all over Europe. They have been published in much of Africa. They have been published in parts of Asia. They have been reproduced in the Middle East.
But they’ve been shown virtually nowhere in America. With our 24-hour news channels, with our three major network newscasts, with our “USA Today” and “New York Times.”
And nothing.
Oh, a few years ago they showed us pictures of a crucifix in urine. They show us singers dressed up like Jesus. They show us cartoons that make fun of the pope.
But nothing about Mohammed.
Which raises the question: Is there a double standard at play here, which puts Muslim sensibilities above the responsibility of the free press? Do the networks care more about Muslims than they do viewers?
Is this political correctness, another kissing of the Muslim backside?
Or is this outright cowardice? Are the American news organizations just spineless? Do they fear being targeted by Muslim protests or Muslim terrorism?
Are their principles so cheap that they can be sold over some silly editorial cartoons?
It seems so.
And that’s a shame.
If they were truly news organizations, they’d give us the news.
And right now, the news is those cartoons.
So why can’t we see them?
Images of Mohammed
There is a certain amount of stupidity that is inevitable in any organization. Why that sort of stupidity should collect in such a large pool in the news media is a puzzle. This industry is ostensibly in the business of information gathering and dissemination. Yet it manages – pound for pound – to extrude more misleading bilge than any organization including used car salesmen, lawyers and the ACLU.
So why have the media printed or broadcast the self evident lie that creating an image of Mohammed is against the religious rules of Islam? Because they have taken the word of the people who are cutting off heads, burning flags and firebombing embassies to tell the West how “outraged” they are.
But it does not take more than a moment to find out of images of Mohammed are actually forbidden by Islamic law.
I cite the following:
There is nowhere a country that is more dogmatically Islamic than Iran. It is ruled by Islamic law. Its ultimate leaders are hyper-orthodox Islamic clerics. Yet here is a picture of Mohammed which can be bought in the souks of Iran.
Here's one from Central Asia
Thanks to "The Religious Policeman" for doing his part to get the truth out. It will not be found in the Virginian Pilot.
So why have the media printed or broadcast the self evident lie that creating an image of Mohammed is against the religious rules of Islam? Because they have taken the word of the people who are cutting off heads, burning flags and firebombing embassies to tell the West how “outraged” they are.
But it does not take more than a moment to find out of images of Mohammed are actually forbidden by Islamic law.
I cite the following:
There is nowhere a country that is more dogmatically Islamic than Iran. It is ruled by Islamic law. Its ultimate leaders are hyper-orthodox Islamic clerics. Yet here is a picture of Mohammed which can be bought in the souks of Iran.
Here's one from Central Asia
Thanks to "The Religious Policeman" for doing his part to get the truth out. It will not be found in the Virginian Pilot.
Jimmy Carter's Warrantless Wiretaps
Jimmy Carter was arguably one of the worst Presidents in the 20th century. Instead of fading into well deserved obscurity he has made his post-Presidential career as walking, talking apologist for virtually every Left-wing regime in the world.
We are reminded of this miserable man because he used his remarks during the Coretta King funeral into an opportunity to criticize wiretapping with the obvious intention of implying that the NSA intercepts of communication between Al Qaeda sympathizers are both immoral and illegal.
It now turns out that the Carter administration used warrantless wiretaps. Captain’s Quarters has the details.
What’s interesting is that several previous administrations have used warrentless wiretaps with less of an excuse than the Bush administration while claiming the exact same authority that Bush has, and have been upheld by the courts.
And without a peep from congress or the media.
We are reminded of this miserable man because he used his remarks during the Coretta King funeral into an opportunity to criticize wiretapping with the obvious intention of implying that the NSA intercepts of communication between Al Qaeda sympathizers are both immoral and illegal.
It now turns out that the Carter administration used warrantless wiretaps. Captain’s Quarters has the details.
What’s interesting is that several previous administrations have used warrentless wiretaps with less of an excuse than the Bush administration while claiming the exact same authority that Bush has, and have been upheld by the courts.
And without a peep from congress or the media.
WILL PIGS FLY?
From Kicking over My Traces:
Tim Rutten is the “media critic” for the Los Angeles Times. I frequently disagree with his printed views. This morning, though, he takes the hypocritical American media to the woodshed for its self-censorship over the Danish cartoons, asking whether these same media outlets will self-censor over, say, the upcoming release of The Da Vinci Code, starring Tom Hanks in a vicious smear of the Catholic Church:
Tim Rutten is the “media critic” for the Los Angeles Times. I frequently disagree with his printed views. This morning, though, he takes the hypocritical American media to the woodshed for its self-censorship over the Danish cartoons, asking whether these same media outlets will self-censor over, say, the upcoming release of The Da Vinci Code, starring Tom Hanks in a vicious smear of the Catholic Church:
Naaaaaww
It won’t happen for a simple reason that has nothing to do with the ideas being expressed or anybody’s sensitivities, religious or otherwise. It won’t happen because Pope Benedict XVI isn’t about to issue a fatwa against director Ron Howard or star Tom Hanks. It won’t happen because Cardinal Roger M. Mahoney isn’t going to lead an angry mob to burn Sony Studios, and none of the priests of the archdiocese is going to climb into the pulpit Sunday and call for the producer’s beheading.
On the other hand, perhaps the events of the last two weeks have shocked our editors and news executives into a communal change of heart when it comes to sensitivies of all religious believers.
Right.
That will happen when pigs soar through the skies on the wings of angels, when the lion reclines with the lamb on high-thread-count Egyptian cotton sheets and no one bothers to beat the world’s very last sword into a ploughshare because all the hungry have been fed.
Until that glorious day, those of us who inhabit this real world will continue to believe that the American news media’s current exercise in mass self-censorship has nothing to do with either sensitivity or restraint and everything to do with timidity and expediency.
The News Censors Are …. Ta da: The News Media
Ed Driscoll tells us how the Legacy Media (and that includes the Virginian Pilot) censors the news. Read the whole thing.
When Tom Wolfe wrote The Right Stuff, he described newspapers, collectively, as the Proper Victorian Gentleman. He saw firsthand how much news is withheld from readers, in an effort to be, as Sullivan writes, arbiters of "social etiquette and good judgment"
When Tom Wolfe wrote The Right Stuff, he described newspapers, collectively, as the Proper Victorian Gentleman. He saw firsthand how much news is withheld from readers, in an effort to be, as Sullivan writes, arbiters of "social etiquette and good judgment"
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Are you a hypersensitive, paranoid, publicity-seeking Christian?
This is too good not to copy in full (from One Hand Clapping)
In response to the Danish cartoon issue, Virginia Postrel writes,
What tripe. Does Virginia think that all Christians who revere and love Christ are shallow and unserious? Can it occur to her that devotion to our Lord is found among sober-minded normal people? We are offended, too, but we understand that living in a free society means that people will inevtiably tromp on what we consider sacred and holy. Ms. Postrel seems never to have a clue. Apparently in Postrel-lala-land, the only Christians who voice objections to mockery of their faith are “hypersensitive, paranoid, publicity-seeking,” – a claim she does not make about the Muslims rioting because of the cartoons.
Interesting that she calls Christians who objected to West’s photo, “publicity-seeking” as if wanting publicity had nothing to do with West’s decision to mock Jesus.
Truly, Virginia’s commentary is one of the stupidest things I’ve read recently. And it seems to me she reveals, unwittingly, the real object of her contempt. It isn’t Muslims rioting because of cartoons, it’s Christians who simply speak out against mockery of their Lord. What bigotry.
In response to the Danish cartoon issue, Virginia Postrel writes,
Okay, so far so good. But then she goes silly:My response to this nonsense is to wonder why Muslims don’t grow up. If your co-religionists are going to take political stands, and blow up innocent people in the name of Islam, political cartoonists are going to occasionally take satirical swipes at your religion. Those swipes may not be nuanced, but they’re what you can expect when you live in a free society, where you, too, can hold views others find offensive. If you don’t like it, move to Saudi Arabia. Or just try to peacefully convert people to Islam.
As Fred Barnes points out, the current cover of Rolling Stone is offensive to (hypersensitive, paranoid, publicity-seeking) Christians, but they aren’t threatening anyone with physical violence.In Postrel-land, the only Christians who are offended by Kanye West’s (and Rolling Stones‘) mockery of Christ are “hypersensitive, paranoid, publicity-seeking” Christians.
What tripe. Does Virginia think that all Christians who revere and love Christ are shallow and unserious? Can it occur to her that devotion to our Lord is found among sober-minded normal people? We are offended, too, but we understand that living in a free society means that people will inevtiably tromp on what we consider sacred and holy. Ms. Postrel seems never to have a clue. Apparently in Postrel-lala-land, the only Christians who voice objections to mockery of their faith are “hypersensitive, paranoid, publicity-seeking,” – a claim she does not make about the Muslims rioting because of the cartoons.
Interesting that she calls Christians who objected to West’s photo, “publicity-seeking” as if wanting publicity had nothing to do with West’s decision to mock Jesus.
Truly, Virginia’s commentary is one of the stupidest things I’ve read recently. And it seems to me she reveals, unwittingly, the real object of her contempt. It isn’t Muslims rioting because of cartoons, it’s Christians who simply speak out against mockery of their Lord. What bigotry.
THE GODS OF THE LEFT
The Left is not actually irreligious. They have a faith that is as deep and profound as the most committed snake handler and poison drinker. Their faith is in the saintliness of judges. Consider the Democrats’ position regarding the NSA data mining operation. It began with a cry of outrage. It has now been reduced to the acquiescence of its continuation, just as long as it is blessed by the sacred hand of a judge. The position of the Left is now reduced to: spy on me without judicial blessing and it’s a sin, spy on me with judicial blessing and your legal virginity is restored.
Keep in mind that these paragons of ethical purity upheld slavery (Dred Scott), upheld segregation (Plessy vs. Ferguson), decreed that growing wheat for your own use involved interstate commerce (Wickard vs. Filburn), blessed sending over 100,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry to concentration camps (Korematsu v. United States) , and had no problem determining that aborting your child was a private matter and could be done until the child had completely left the mother’s body (Roe v. Wade).
And they talk about the blind faith of Christians.
Keep in mind that these paragons of ethical purity upheld slavery (Dred Scott), upheld segregation (Plessy vs. Ferguson), decreed that growing wheat for your own use involved interstate commerce (Wickard vs. Filburn), blessed sending over 100,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry to concentration camps (Korematsu v. United States) , and had no problem determining that aborting your child was a private matter and could be done until the child had completely left the mother’s body (Roe v. Wade).
And they talk about the blind faith of Christians.
WHEN FREEDOM REQUIRES COURAGE, GUESS HOW THE WEST REACTS?
There was a glimmer of hope that the Islamic riots would put some spine into the leaders of the West. I had hope, but reality has set in: the EU and the Canadian government is now prepared to capitulate.
But you can still insult Christianity.
But you can still insult Christianity.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
"OFFENSIVE" CARTOONS PUBLISHED IN EGYPT ... IN 2005
This is rich. The “West” including the media, the blogosphere, various governments and the general public has been hoodwinked… hoodwinked, by a bunch of Third-world con men who got out some crowds.
Here is the whole story on The Belmont Club (read the whole thing):
And now it turns out that these cartoons have been circulated in the Muslim world, in Egyptian newspapers to be precise, as far back as October 2005. Amir Taheri says the Multiculti "intellectuals" have been humbugged. Taken. Sold some phony interpretation of Islam the way you would take a rube to the Olive Garden for Italian food, Taco Bell for Mexican, or serve up chop-suey and General Tso chicken as authentic Chinese cuisine. According to Taheri the whole "you can't portray Mohammed" injunction was largely drummed up by snake-oil salesmen who found a ready market of people ready to fall all over themselves in the West.
Here is the whole story on The Belmont Club (read the whole thing):
And now it turns out that these cartoons have been circulated in the Muslim world, in Egyptian newspapers to be precise, as far back as October 2005. Amir Taheri says the Multiculti "intellectuals" have been humbugged. Taken. Sold some phony interpretation of Islam the way you would take a rube to the Olive Garden for Italian food, Taco Bell for Mexican, or serve up chop-suey and General Tso chicken as authentic Chinese cuisine. According to Taheri the whole "you can't portray Mohammed" injunction was largely drummed up by snake-oil salesmen who found a ready market of people ready to fall all over themselves in the West.
More on the Cowardice of American Media
Jonah Goldberg makes a compelling point. I plan to call the Virginian Pilot to find out where their pictures are.
I'm basically with JPod, but I'd go further. The newspapers are claiming they won't run these cartoons out of sensitivity etc. But that argument only works -- or only works well -- when the discussion is about running them as editorial cartoons. They aren't cartoons anymore, they are news. The debate keeps focusing on whether newspapers should run them based upon some sort of lofty "editorial" judgment -- i.e. coming out in favor of freedom of speech or in solidarity with the Danes. That's an argument, but a fairly irrelevant one.
The better way to look at this is by asking a basic question: where the heck are the news editors? When Neo-Nazis desecrate synagogues or black churches, newspapers and networks show the images even though they are just as easily described with words. Why? Because of their news value. Surely, the swastika drawn on a Jewish grave is "offensive." The Abu Ghraib photos were offensive, the Rodney King photos were offensive, lots of photos are offensive. But sometimes they provide context. And, sometimes editors proudly run them because they are offensive. That was surely why the Rodney King video played ten trillion times. The Abu Ghraib images were broadcast constantly partly on the grounds that people needed to be "shocked."
Now, in the case of these cartoons, there's news value in showing people how decidedly un-shocking they are. That's important context and the news and photo editors are simply abdicating their responsibilities.
UPDATE:
I have no problem whatever with a media organization choosing not to publish the cartoons on the grounds that it is acting cautiously to ensure that its staffers don't get their heads bashed in overseas -- or because of fears that Islamic radicals here at home might choose to take a stand by taking a shot at somebody. These people are dangerous and it is meet and proper to exercise caution.
A consortium of publishers in the United States joined together to put Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses into paperback in order to protect staffers at Rushdie's publishing house from being added to the murderous fatwa against him -- and only the most self-righteously pious could have objected to that act of caution, given the circumstances.
It's the pretense in the cartoon case that I find so repulsive -- the pretense that these organizations have made an editorial judgment in choosing not to publish. That's nonsense on stilts, and what's more, they all know it. They aren't publishing out of a reasonable fear, not out of reasoned reflection. But they just can't resist lying in a way to make themselves feel better about their decision.
[AND MORE]
Papers not publishing those cartoons don't annoy me as much as ones who don't publish them while publishing dunged Marys.
[AND MORE]
COVERING A CONTROVERSY ABOUT MOHAMMED, THE NEW YORK TIMES RUNS... VIRGIN MARY IN ELEPHANT DUNG
So - the New York Times writes about the Danish cartoon controversy, and includes a photo of demonstrators... and one other photo. The caption:
Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary" was at the center of controversy when shown at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999.
Yup, it's the Virgin Mary depicted in elephant dung painting.
What a bunch of wimps. They'll run photos of art that offends Christians from seven years ago in a heartbeat, but they won't dare run a cartoon that could offend their Muslim readers.
I'm basically with JPod, but I'd go further. The newspapers are claiming they won't run these cartoons out of sensitivity etc. But that argument only works -- or only works well -- when the discussion is about running them as editorial cartoons. They aren't cartoons anymore, they are news. The debate keeps focusing on whether newspapers should run them based upon some sort of lofty "editorial" judgment -- i.e. coming out in favor of freedom of speech or in solidarity with the Danes. That's an argument, but a fairly irrelevant one.
The better way to look at this is by asking a basic question: where the heck are the news editors? When Neo-Nazis desecrate synagogues or black churches, newspapers and networks show the images even though they are just as easily described with words. Why? Because of their news value. Surely, the swastika drawn on a Jewish grave is "offensive." The Abu Ghraib photos were offensive, the Rodney King photos were offensive, lots of photos are offensive. But sometimes they provide context. And, sometimes editors proudly run them because they are offensive. That was surely why the Rodney King video played ten trillion times. The Abu Ghraib images were broadcast constantly partly on the grounds that people needed to be "shocked."
Now, in the case of these cartoons, there's news value in showing people how decidedly un-shocking they are. That's important context and the news and photo editors are simply abdicating their responsibilities.
UPDATE:
I have no problem whatever with a media organization choosing not to publish the cartoons on the grounds that it is acting cautiously to ensure that its staffers don't get their heads bashed in overseas -- or because of fears that Islamic radicals here at home might choose to take a stand by taking a shot at somebody. These people are dangerous and it is meet and proper to exercise caution.
A consortium of publishers in the United States joined together to put Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses into paperback in order to protect staffers at Rushdie's publishing house from being added to the murderous fatwa against him -- and only the most self-righteously pious could have objected to that act of caution, given the circumstances.
It's the pretense in the cartoon case that I find so repulsive -- the pretense that these organizations have made an editorial judgment in choosing not to publish. That's nonsense on stilts, and what's more, they all know it. They aren't publishing out of a reasonable fear, not out of reasoned reflection. But they just can't resist lying in a way to make themselves feel better about their decision.
[AND MORE]
Papers not publishing those cartoons don't annoy me as much as ones who don't publish them while publishing dunged Marys.
[AND MORE]
COVERING A CONTROVERSY ABOUT MOHAMMED, THE NEW YORK TIMES RUNS... VIRGIN MARY IN ELEPHANT DUNG
So - the New York Times writes about the Danish cartoon controversy, and includes a photo of demonstrators... and one other photo. The caption:
Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary" was at the center of controversy when shown at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999.
Yup, it's the Virgin Mary depicted in elephant dung painting.
What a bunch of wimps. They'll run photos of art that offends Christians from seven years ago in a heartbeat, but they won't dare run a cartoon that could offend their Muslim readers.
Applebaum, The Washington Post and B.S. (So What Else is New?)
The latest offering from Anne Applebaum attempts to play to an imaginary center in the cartoon fracas by castigating liberal-leaning newspapers that refused to reprint the supposedly offensive Danish cartoons and balancing that with an attack on the right-wing blogosphere. Applebaum rewrites history, apparently an industrial hazard at the Washington Post, in comparing the cartoon controversy to the Newsweek Qu'ran-flushing story:
From Captain's Quarters; read the whole thing.
From Captain's Quarters; read the whole thing.
The BBC Admits to Misleading the Public
From the Belmont Club:
Tonight the BBC admitted that it has misinformed the international community by telling the world that one of the Danish Muhammad cartoons was a depiction of a pigsnouted Muhammad.
[snip]
What was that about limits proposed on free speech arising out of a duty not to inflame the Muslim street? Under what category of inflammation does attributing a pig-snouted depiction of Mohammed to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons fall, when that cartoon was never published by the newspaper, and as anyone from the BBC might have known by simply obtaining a copy of the cartoons? The blogs have been known this for a long time and more's the shame.
In summary, the major western media are a rare combination of bullies, cowards and liars.
But that's not such a rare combination ... is it?
UPDATE:
By Wretchard:
The BBC, as tool of the British Government, was in fact complicit in the rise of Hitler. In the late 1930s both Winston Churchill and Lloyd George (who had been British PM during WWI) were banned from speaking on the BBC because they might upset Hitler. Candidates to the Cabinet were vetted for their acceptability to Herr Hitler. They did not want to rile him. Later, when Churchill was finally allowed to speak, the BBC sent someone to interview him. The BBC man happened to be Guy Burgess, later famous as one of the Soviet spies. George Orwell modeled the Ministry of Truth in 1984 on the BBC. If anything the BBC has improved since. One hopes.
But there are other interesting comparisons: for example, the Spanish Civil War and the cartoon crisis may be analogues. It was the Spanish Civil War which finally weakened the pacifist movement because Hitler finally struck at something the Communists cared enough about to fight for. The Spanish Civil war was the moment the socialists began to snap out of their dream. And it came about accidentally, partly because Stalin decided to fight Franco and partly from reports filtering back about what Nazis really were. It was the tipping point.
Maybe the cartoon crisis will be that moment -- or the start of that moment. Despite September 11 the liberals aren't yet convinced that the Islamists have come for them. Come especially for them. If Maureen Dowd thought clearly she would be scared out of her wits, scared for her life, and not of BushChimpHitler. For many liberals the WTC, the Pentagon and the Whitehouse were guilty symbols of the Man's power. So they weren't too upset, symbolically speaking, at their destruction. That's why the attack on Denmark's got them stumped. Liberal Denmark, small European nation, generous to Muslim countries, attacked. Why is it being attacked? So they construct lamer and lamer arguments to justify the BushChimpHitler fantasy. Maybe Jylands-Posten was a right wing plot. But now it turns out the Imams cooked up the really inflammatory images. It was a Reichstag Burning alright, but the liberals got the cast of characters completely wrong. One almost pities the liberals in their desperate twists to find some way to avoid recognizing the obvious. And none so blind as they who will not see.
Tonight the BBC admitted that it has misinformed the international community by telling the world that one of the Danish Muhammad cartoons was a depiction of a pigsnouted Muhammad.
[snip]
What was that about limits proposed on free speech arising out of a duty not to inflame the Muslim street? Under what category of inflammation does attributing a pig-snouted depiction of Mohammed to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons fall, when that cartoon was never published by the newspaper, and as anyone from the BBC might have known by simply obtaining a copy of the cartoons? The blogs have been known this for a long time and more's the shame.
In summary, the major western media are a rare combination of bullies, cowards and liars.
But that's not such a rare combination ... is it?
UPDATE:
By Wretchard:
The BBC, as tool of the British Government, was in fact complicit in the rise of Hitler. In the late 1930s both Winston Churchill and Lloyd George (who had been British PM during WWI) were banned from speaking on the BBC because they might upset Hitler. Candidates to the Cabinet were vetted for their acceptability to Herr Hitler. They did not want to rile him. Later, when Churchill was finally allowed to speak, the BBC sent someone to interview him. The BBC man happened to be Guy Burgess, later famous as one of the Soviet spies. George Orwell modeled the Ministry of Truth in 1984 on the BBC. If anything the BBC has improved since. One hopes.
But there are other interesting comparisons: for example, the Spanish Civil War and the cartoon crisis may be analogues. It was the Spanish Civil War which finally weakened the pacifist movement because Hitler finally struck at something the Communists cared enough about to fight for. The Spanish Civil war was the moment the socialists began to snap out of their dream. And it came about accidentally, partly because Stalin decided to fight Franco and partly from reports filtering back about what Nazis really were. It was the tipping point.
Maybe the cartoon crisis will be that moment -- or the start of that moment. Despite September 11 the liberals aren't yet convinced that the Islamists have come for them. Come especially for them. If Maureen Dowd thought clearly she would be scared out of her wits, scared for her life, and not of BushChimpHitler. For many liberals the WTC, the Pentagon and the Whitehouse were guilty symbols of the Man's power. So they weren't too upset, symbolically speaking, at their destruction. That's why the attack on Denmark's got them stumped. Liberal Denmark, small European nation, generous to Muslim countries, attacked. Why is it being attacked? So they construct lamer and lamer arguments to justify the BushChimpHitler fantasy. Maybe Jylands-Posten was a right wing plot. But now it turns out the Imams cooked up the really inflammatory images. It was a Reichstag Burning alright, but the liberals got the cast of characters completely wrong. One almost pities the liberals in their desperate twists to find some way to avoid recognizing the obvious. And none so blind as they who will not see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)