MRC president and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell appeared on the August 29 "Fox & Friends" to discuss the Washington Post's double standards on religious sensitivity.
As NewsBusters associate editor Noel Sheppard reported on Sunday, the Post refused to run Berkeley Breathed's August 26 "Opus" cartoon in which flighty recurring character Lola Granola has declared herself a "radical Islamist" and adopted its strict adherence to Muslim law, including covering herself head-to-toe, much to the chagrin of her long-suffering boyfriend.
Video (1:50): Real (3.00 MB) and Windows (3.44 MB), plus MP3 audio (534 kB).
Bozell noted that the Post's religious sensitivities do not extend to avoid offending Christians, particularly Catholics:
Here you have a cartoon that takes a swipe not at Muslims but at radical Islamists, and they deem that to be inappropriate, and yet the very same paper runs this not only a cartoon attacking Jerry Falwell and his followers, but on a regular basis attacks Christians, it attacks Catholics, it attacks priests, it attacks bishops. It's run cartoons I've seen-- this is a shout-out to the Catholic League which has done a report on this-- it's even run cartoons desecrating images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. That's okay. That's free speech. They wrap themselves around free speech when it comes to attacking Christians. But when it comes to attacking radical Islamists, suddenly they have standards. It's not a standard, it's a double standard.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No offense?
August 29, 2007 - 11:10 ET by Mica the MagnificentThey won't offend Islam for this reason:
The Washington Post would not know how to spin the coverage of their editors heads being lopped off on Al-Jazzera t.v.
Coming Soon....
August 29, 2007 - 12:53 ET by motherbeltTo a neighborhood near you: Sharia law by abdication.
I suspect that the WaPo, as
August 29, 2007 - 11:24 ET by jacquejetI suspect that the WaPo, as well as most other news organizations, know that offending christian organizations or christians isn't something that will promote violence against them. However, I think that the media is truly afraid of what one or more Islamist's might do to them or their people if they "offend" Mohammed or Allah.
'Fraidy Cats
August 29, 2007 - 11:36 ET by NoMoreClintonsIt's simple fear - would you rather be reamed out by Bill Donahue or have your ears lowered by the "Religion of Peace"?
I was actually shocked this
August 29, 2007 - 11:38 ET by xfastI was actually shocked this morning to see Matt Lauer do an almost completely neutral report on this, and actually question the double standard as well as mention an "open season" on Christians. This is pretty indefensible by the papers who chose to cling to a double standard, especially when Matt Lauer is even calling you out on it.
The earth is on fire and it is YOUR fault...
Post, etc.
August 29, 2007 - 11:45 ET by Felicity RandFunny how the MSM will downplay the threat re: Islamic terrorism yet they are too afraid to print an image in a comic strip.
Funnier still is the self-perpetuated belief that the MSM is fearless--"Truth to Power", "Keeping Them Honest", etc. There are few things more ridiculous.
Speaking truth to power
August 29, 2007 - 11:50 ET by KC MulvilleIf you pull the cartoon, you forever surrender the claim that your crticisms are anchored in truth. Pulling the cartoon shows that your criticisms are based, instead, on what you think you can get away with. And if you're willing to insult people based on what you can get away with, what truth do you think you're speaking?
This is not really a big story in itself, but it exposes the media's transparent rationalizing about their agenda.
The keyword here is "Terror"
August 29, 2007 - 12:30 ET by jswanagonIt is as much a double standard as it is terror. As much as
the MSM likes reporting on the dangers of Christianity and how Christianity is
as much a threat as radical Islam and other terrorist factions, the truth is they
know it is bunk. They are not afraid of the kind of backlash from Christians
that they would receive from radical Islam because; they know that Christians
are not the terrorist nuts we are reported to be. So Christians are an easy
target. Radical Islam, however, poses the threat of bombing the newspaper building
for printing anything controversial to their cause, and that Terrifies the MSM,
hence the label "terrorists". It's hard to lump a religion you are
not afraid of in the least, with a religion that in its very nature and
description terrifies you to your very core. Of course, they will never admit to
this reasoning.
more fodder
August 29, 2007 - 13:12 ET by cbarnesIncidents like this will continue to mount until some huge event exposes the double standard and many people will change their minds about "peaceful" Islam
Breathed should change the
August 29, 2007 - 13:25 ET by Hero SquadBreathed should change the strips to have her become a radical Christian, just to see if the newspapers have the same problem with it. Could be an interesting experiment.
*****
"Some people have a way with words. Other people, er, I don't know. Not have way, I guess."
Absolutely...
August 29, 2007 - 16:00 ET by BradzillaAnd to even make it fair, have her commit to bombing abortion clinics. See who is afraid that will offend anyone. If anyone chose to not publish out of good taste, that would be "infringing on free speech." Tell me I'm wrong.
-
August 29, 2007 - 23:07 ET by dahliatraversGood idea.
Another point that I
August 29, 2007 - 14:07 ET by Tom1969caAnother point that I discovered in the Catholic League article (emphasis mine):
So, even though Muslim leaders said, "Nope, no problem with this," they pulled it anyway.
But let Catholics complain about cartoons refering to "St. Pedophilia's Catholic Church" or showing the DNC logo in place of the Sacred Heart of Christ, and Catholics are told to grow up and get a sense of humour.
~~~
Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy.
Where's the "Fairness
August 29, 2007 - 15:06 ET by robert108Where's the "Fairness Doctrine" on this?