Mass Shooting At Newspaper In Paris

We've been told repeatedly that we are at "war" with these people. Well, war is ugly. Yet, any time we might show signs of being in a "war," that means the "terrorists have won."

Did Cuba "win" because Americans were scared during the missile crisis?

Did the Soviet Union "win" because Americans were practicing hiding under their desks in case of a nuclear attack during the Cold War?

No. Just like the terrorists didn't "win" when Americans were scared to go shopping after 9/11.

That being said, I would've run the latest Charlie Hebdo cover. I wouldn't have run the ones that were deliberately meant to inflame.

 

Wait, are the decision makers afraid, or are they just being respectful?

Because I haven't seen one decision maker (publicly) say the decision to not run the cartoons -- or any other image of Muhammad -- was influenced by fear.

 

What about the editor who said he had to think about the danger he was putting his staff in?

In any war, it may not be the best philosophy to go out of one's way to purposely incite and embolden your enemy. That's why the pictures of bin Laden kill shot weren't widely run. Or the pictures of Saddam after being hanged. Etc. Etc.

 

Who said that?

The Times public editor says that Baquet had to consider it, but Baquet hasn't said it publicly that I'm aware of.

Jeff Zucker apparently said it in an editorial meeting, but he hasn't said it publicly:

In the network's daily editorial meeting on Thursday morning, CNN Worldwide president Jeff Zucker addressed the decision.

"Journalistically, every bone says we want to use and should use" the cartoons, Zucker said. But "as managers, protecting and taking care of the safety of our employees around the world is more important right now."

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/07/media/charlie-hebdo-terror-attack-media-mohammed-cartoons/index.html

 

The terrorists have won.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ch...ales-at-a-third-of-its-restaurants-2015-01-14

 

Haha. Was my first thought. Almost started a thread...

 

You quoted some editor(not NYT) who said it, and I maintain that it's the best reason not to show them.

 

"Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker. Pigs sleep and root in shit. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces."

 

The free expression vs. violent reaction debate was particularly pointed for Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, a British publication. In a series of tweets after the Paris killings, Pollard argued for not publishing.


“Easy to attack papers for not showing cartoons,” he tweeted. “But here’s my editor’s dilemma. Every principle I hold tells me to print them . . . what right do I have to risk the lives of my staff to make a point?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...1e9c8c-96bc-11e4-8005-1924ede3e54a_story.html

 

We'd have to be talking about one charming motherfuckin' pig.

 

George Washington often retreated in the face of British assault during the Revolutionary War. He often had to in order to preserve some semblance of a fighting force.

Were people then saying that meant the British had "won?"

 

Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel wonder WTF the big deal is about Obama not attending the peace march, since Merkel and all the other chick leaders weren't in their newspaper's photo anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/w...-of-paris-unity-rally.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1