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.

Share
  • The Goat

    What’s a newspaper?

    • Frau Katze

      Better not to ask!

    • Exile1981

      Something used to wrap dead fish in to help encourage that lovely odor all dead fish develop after a days in the hot sun. Newspapers come pre-impregnated with that boutique.

    • Norman_In_New_York

      A newspaper is a chronicle of humanity’s crimes, follies and misfortunes.

  • David Murrell

    I.e.,. the New York Times will not publish cartoons from Charlie Hebdo, given that the NYT, as an anti-Semitic newspaper in sympathy with Islamism, does not want to offend its Muslim readership. That’s the core of it. The NYT, as a newspaper opposing democracy, Western values and human rights, sides with the Islamists. That’s it.

    • Frau Katze

      But they just love to criticize Christianity. That is what I find so annoying.

  • winniec

    The NYT said Stalin’s Artificial Famine in Ukraine was not a famine.

    The joint is run by Leftarded cultural Marxists.

  • Martin B

    They’re lying through their teeth when they say they planned to publish the cartoons but changed their minds after careful consideration. Under a different batch of senior editors, they refused to publish the Danish motoons in 2006. There was never any doubt – nothing that might offend the Muzz will ever come out of the NYT newsroom, and no consideration will ever be given to the religious sensibilities of Christians.

  • pdxnag

    Don’t pious Muslims recite mandatory passages 17 times daily that generally mock vilify and wish for harm to befall all non-Muslims? Today we call this institutionalized hate speech a “religion.” We do this even as it incites violence and generally supports the Islamic imperative to impose Sharia and to engage generally in acts of sedition toward that end.

    They seek to be your master, by force if necessary. Core free speech is all about criticism of government and government officials. Indeed it is a restraint on government power to restrict private speech. The Islamization project, Islamic conquest, is all about asserting exclusive sovereign authority by Muslims and is thus the quintessential target for the application of the First Amendment protections.

  • Hard Little Machine

    The Times editorial board in the last two years was lifted wholesale from the BBC and the Guardian. They’re not afraid of murderous Muslim psychopaths they ARE murderous Muslim psychopaths. The elephant in the room is that the next jihad will be lead by people who don’t ‘look’ or ‘sound’ like al Qaeda.