Hit and Run: "New York Times: Shout Loudly Enough, and We Will Succumb to Your Heckler’s Veto - Why will the Paper of Record publish a condom-Pope but not a Mohammed statue? Catholics aren’t loud (or scary) enough."
The NY Times here is suggesting that - all things being equal - it's the nature of the artwork that engenders protests instead of the nature of the protesters.
My favorite part of the Times' specious argument is that, gosh darn it, some people think that Condom Pope is "a piece of significant artwork." So c'mon artists, let's get some quality paintings of Mohammad and the New York Times will happily share the culture.
2 comments:
Actually, if Catholics did become violent in response to such images, The New York Times would characterize its publishing them as an act of righteousness, and they'd push for a War on Catholicism.
But there's something in the liberal soul that just resonates with Islamic totalitarianism.
I don't know why it's so hard for the NYT to say "we goofed." The explanation is an insult.
Krugman-esque mentality.
Post a Comment