<< ENGLISHMAN JOINS MODO PURSUIT ~ MAIN ~ TRAVEL ADVISORY >>
MO SENSITIVITY
The forbidden cartoons of Mohammadness have been published more widely in Muslim countries than in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada combined. In Malaysia alone, three newspapers ran images – compared to just two newspapers in Australia.
Not a single major US daily went near them.
UPDATE and CORRECTION. Much dispute in comments over the line above, which may have been unfairly dismissive of the papers that did publish the images; which, come to think of it, practically defines them as “major”. Unintended slur withdrawn.
I posted this statement before, but it bears repeating: A few radical Muslims have cowed the American media more than the Soviet Union did with 300 divisions and 20,000 nuclear bombs. It is a victory that will encourage radical Muslims to rule the Western world by proxy for generations.
Posted by perfectsense on 2006 03 01 at 09:50 PM • permalinkYeah, the Inquirer did run one, was picketed, and chose instead to offer only a link to the picture in its online version of the story. For that, they get a one-handed clap.
Posted by William Young on 2006 03 01 at 11:14 PM • permalinkA few radical Muslims have cowed the American media more than the Soviet Union did with 300 divisions and 20,000 nuclear bombs.
I disagree. Many in the press were on the Soviet’s side, so if they were not cowed by anyone, it was by the US.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 03 01 at 11:27 PM • permalinkTim, the Rocky Mountain News ran them, and got mostly positive support. Circ’s about 260,000.
Posted by Matt in Denver on 2006 03 01 at 11:28 PM • permalinkAre the Rocky Mountain News and the Austin American Statesment major US dailies?
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 02 at 01:08 AM • permalinkI never miss the Austin American Statesman.
Get your act together, Blair.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 03 02 at 01:56 AM • permalink(via Mark Steyn’s mailbox 02-Mar-06)
The Official Apology
From Denmark to the Muslim World, simply called “We´re Sorry!”A detailed, apologetic stuff.
I remember how the darkness doubled. I recall, lightning struck itself. I was listening, listening to the rain. I was hearing, hearing something else.
Posted by Piss Mohammed on 2006 03 02 at 03:28 AM • permalinkFollowing your correction, it is very hard to post condescending demands full of righteous indignation. You’ve ruined this thread, don’t you realise, Blair.
Harris - don’t let it happen again.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 03 02 at 04:27 AM • permalink#17 PM: Nice quote from Marquee Moon. I’m listening to it right now. One of the greatest rock albums ever. (Is it possible to say that without sounding like an insufferable moron? An insufferable moron’s opinion: No.)
Wikipedia has a list of newspapers that printed the cartoons.
The Miami Herald’s circulation is around 300,000, not a million. The Inquirer is the larger paper. list
Perfectsense, I don’t think it is fair at all to say we in the American media have been “cowed.” We’re simply trying to respect our readers religious sensibilities—not the sensibilities of the militant Muslims who are behaving violently, but the other 99%.
Derek said:
I don’t think it is fair at all to say we in the American media have been “cowed.” We’re simply trying to respect our readers religious sensibilities—not the sensibilities of the militant Muslims who are behaving violently, but the other 99%.
How nice of you. Too bad you don’t treat Christians the same way.
(And no, I’m not Christian)
BTW, I think your “respect our readers religious sensibilities” is more accurately spelled SCARED SHITLESS. :-(
Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2006 03 02 at 06:23 PM • permalinkGotta agree with Barbara S, on the huge cop out by Derek at #23.
Please do, Derek, enlighten all of us as to when the legacy media began to “respect our readers religious sensibilities”?
Images of Mohammed are not forbidden by the Koran, as an article by Amir Taheri entitled “Bonfire of the Pieties” which appeared in the WSJ on February 8th, pointed out. He included a long list of the image of Mohammed appearing in works of art since the 16th century. Perhaps this is the understanding of the 99% of Muslims you mention; so in effect, you show a patronizing disrespect to these Muslims by your failure to understand this simply aspect of their religion.
Derek, whatever sensibilities the media is respecting, it is of a momentary fashion, a fab, and nothing more. You should be embarassed to watch your, and the media’s, credibility, not just washed down the drain, but flushed down the toilet.Bonfire of the Pieties
I’m very offended, for example, by the scum-bag newspaper editors who have suddenly discovered vast reservoirs of hitherto untapped “sensitivity.”
I’m equally offended by the scum-bag publisher of a New York paper who prohibited his editors from publishing the caricatures.
I’m not offended by the editors who then resigned in protest. Ho ha!
If the allegedly journalistically-objective newspapers declining to publish the images that the squabble is all about had announced that their refusal has to do with fear of blowback, such a course would have been at least semi-honorable. It would have been honest, at least. Or printed an important truth to the West.
It would have given their readers an important clue about the nature of what’s happening.
How far do we go toward accommodating religious sensitivities in a pluralistic society? How far do they go in living their delusions?
See, the “sensitivity” game can be played into infinity.
The only place where folks never rub each other the wrong way is a graveyard and beyond.
Well, we will all get there soon enough.
tick tock tick tock tick tock….....No need to rush, with the exception of the Islamics may wait and rest in the West and take refuge with funding and compensation included when you’re detained and there’s time to wait and decide to convert to Joo Joo Jesus instead.
Sensitivity: you need it for stinky terrorists. OUT NOW Ou t now…
Perfectsense, I don’t think it is fair at all to say we in the American media have been “cowed.” We’re simply trying to respect our readers religious sensibilities—not the sensibilities of the militant Muslims who are behaving violently, but the other 99%.
Derek, if that’s what it takes to allow you to look at yourself in the mirror or face your family without blushing, go for it.
Posted by moneyrunner on 2006 03 02 at 11:39 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Tim,
Can you enlighten us as to The Bulletin’s position and/or discussions on this matter?
Site member Murph had this printed in today’s Oz:
Admittedly they only printed one of his letters in today’s paper.