NYT and not publishing “images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities”

“Left, ‘No Woman, No Cry,’ (1998); right, ‘The Holy Virgin Mary’ (1996), which caused outrage with its depiction of a black Madonna with her right breast replaced by a clump of elephant dung, surrounded by putti formed by images from pornographic magazines.”—photo caption, New York Times website, Oct. 31, 2014  (screen shot of photo above)

…[New York] Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy gave iMediaEthics the newspaper’s statement on the matter yesterday:

“Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.”

…[New York Times public editor Margaret] Sullivan said she interviewed the Times’ executive editor Dean Baquet today to find out why he decided against running the images.

According to Sullivan, Baquet originally planned to publish the photos but “changed [his] mind twice” after talking to staff and thinking about the matter.

The deal breaker in his decision was whether the Charlie Hebdo images would offend Times readers who are Muslim, Sullivan reported he said…

h/t James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal who spotted their hypocrisy. 

Some news sites (including WSJ) did publish the one or more of the cartoons: see more here and here.