Mass Shooting At Newspaper In Paris

Just like Obama calling Benghazi an act of terror and the RWSM complaining that he didn't call it terrorism.

 

"Radical Islam itself is not a unified force or a movement; it's a set of gangs maneuvering for dominance over other gangs, and using violence mostly against other Muslims. But the extremists would like nothing better than for the West to embrace the notions of a clash of civilizations, or a 'war' against a coherent organization, because these ideas give them legitimacy, enhance their appearance of power, and give them more resources and recruits." -- Robert Reich.

 

Maybe we should have a playoff to determine whose terrorism is the broadest problem.

 

Times public editor thinks they should have published the current Charlie cover:

I asked Mr. Baquet on Tuesday if he had considered changing course — as some media organizations did, including The Wall Street Journal and the news pages of the The Washington Post — in order to publish the image of the new edition’s cover. He told me that he had thought about it but decided against it, in keeping with his original thinking.

Here’s my take: The new cover image of Charlie Hebdo is an important part of a story that has gripped the world’s attention over the past week.

The cartoon itself, while it may disturb the sensibilities of a small percentage of Times readers, is neither shocking nor gratuitously offensive. And it has, undoubtedly, significant news value.

With Charlie Hebdo’s expanded press run of millions of copies for this post-attack edition, and a great deal of global coverage, the image is being seen, judged and commented on all over the world. Times readers should not have had to go elsewhere to find it.

http://nyti.ms/1C0w6ix

 

And, if we're going to assume folks like Baquet factored safety concerns into his decision, shouldn't he come out and say so, instead of babbling on about some fictional Muslim family in Brooklyn, who subscribes to the Times, and might be offended by the cartoon(s)?

Mr. Baquet made a tough call, which included safety concerns for Times staff, especially those in international posts. (Those concerns are far from frivolous; just days ago, a German newspaper’s office was firebombed after it published the cartoons following the attack, and now new concerns have arisen about reprisals.)

 

Don't know but right about now is when your buddy comes to the thread to funny'ize about the RWSM, or something.

 

If you're afraid that your employees might be murdered if you publish a cartoon, then you should say so. Don't hide behind some silly idea that you don't want to offend one pious Muslim family in Brooklyn.

 

Slavish devotion.

 

You know, people laugh at and mock the whole "slippery slope" argument, but we're slipping down the slope right now.

South Park was previously able to depict Mohammad, and now they can't.

The Times wouldn't even publish a picture -- that had previously appeared on their front page -- of a statue that depicted Mohammad as a law giver -- a statue meant to honor, and not demean him.

In response to criticism of it's decision not to distribute pictures of the Charlie cartoons, when they had previously distributed pictures of "Piss Christ", AP responded by removing "Piss Christ" from it's catalog.

Since when did not offending people become the highest priority of comedy networks, newspapers, and wire services?

And, how far down the slope do we slip? Do we check in with Muslim families in Brooklyn on a daily basis? What if they're offended by pictures of women that show too much skin? Will they be banned too?

 

Let me get back to you after I check the Daily Kos and finish my latte (organic milk, of course).

 

Hey, don't conflate these two activities. Nothing wrong with enjoying a hot, delicious latte with organic milk.

 

They also elect not to depict grisly murder scenes. Despite having cameras in the locker room of pro sports teams, they elect not to depict the players' schwantzes.

How far down this slope will that cause us to slip!?