Johanna Markind examines the reasons for not publishing any depictions of Mohammed in NYT.
"Ultimately," explained the editor "decided against it because he had to consider foremost the sensibilities of Times readers, especially its Muslim readers. To many of them, he said, depictions of the prophet Muhammad are sacrilegious; those that are meant to mock even more so." Clearly, ALL pictures of Muhammad are proscribed under this heckler's veto, NOT ONLY "those that are meant to mock."
"Of course, the Times' concern over insulting the sensibilities of its readers did not stop it from reprinting The Holy Virgin Mary painting, in which Mary is portrayed covered in elephant dung. In reality, its deep concern about reader sensibility only surfaces where offended readers may murder news editors, reporters, etc. But rather than admit that it is acting out of fear, the Times offers another rationale: nice people don't publish cartoons of Muhammad."
Read more.
"Ultimately," explained the editor "decided against it because he had to consider foremost the sensibilities of Times readers, especially its Muslim readers. To many of them, he said, depictions of the prophet Muhammad are sacrilegious; those that are meant to mock even more so." Clearly, ALL pictures of Muhammad are proscribed under this heckler's veto, NOT ONLY "those that are meant to mock."
"Of course, the Times' concern over insulting the sensibilities of its readers did not stop it from reprinting The Holy Virgin Mary painting, in which Mary is portrayed covered in elephant dung. In reality, its deep concern about reader sensibility only surfaces where offended readers may murder news editors, reporters, etc. But rather than admit that it is acting out of fear, the Times offers another rationale: nice people don't publish cartoons of Muhammad."
Read more.
No comments:
Post a Comment