It is becoming ever more obvious that the press treats cartoons poking fun at Islam in a much different manner than those poking fun at any other religion. One might even say there is a double standard, and why not, since the media themselves acknowledge that it is true.
After running a warning to the client newspapers about the content of Berkeley Breathed's Sunday cartoon 'Opus', comics editor Amy Lago said,
"The strip came in and I knew we would have to send out an alert to all the newspapers," Lago said. "I do that fairly regularly with materials that might pose issues for local areas. ... We knew that because it was a sex joke, it could raise issues. And there is another client that has issues with any Muslim depiction whatsoever." ... But she did alert newspapers about the Muslim-themed cartoon because there was a question about whether Muslim readers would be offended. "I don't necessarily think it's poking fun [at Islam]," Lago said. "But the question with Muslims is, are they taking it seriously?"
So apparently flagging potentially offensive cartoons is "standard practice"? No, it is only for Muslim-themed cartoons- Christian, Jewish and [insert religion of choice here] apparently don't warrant this practice no matter how offensive they may be perceived as being. A case in point is the fact that one week before the censored 'Opus' cartoon, the same cartoonist wrote an 'Opus' strip which lampooned deceased Christian leader Jerry Falwell in terms at least as strong as the Islamic strip. Not only were no warnings sent out regarding that strip, no newspaper apparently felt the need to worry about its (mostly Christian) readers' reactions.
Speaking in regards to the recent decision of the Washington Post and several other newspapers not to run cartoonist Berkeley Breathed's 'Opus' strip due to concerns about how Muslims might view it, King Syndicate editor Brendon Burford said of his competitors,
As far as whether the Post and the Post Writers Group syndicate treated content about conservative Christians differently than it did content about conservative Muslims, it certainly could be taken that way. "It appears on the surface to be a double standard," Burford said, "but at the same time, the climate of the world probably informs their decision with how to go forward with it."
I see. So "the climate of the world" is what they take into account when determining what cartoons to censor. Whatever happened to the First Amendment that reporters like to hold up anytime something offensive to Christians is published, or when reporters like Eric Lichtblau and James Risen bend the law in order to warn our enemies about secret programs designed to protect us? I suspect that this is reporter-speak for "they were afraid of Muslims, since only Muslims have a propensity to kill people with whom they disagree".
It would appear that there is indeed a double standard- and journalists are among the forefront of those pushing for a new dhimmitude. Too bad they can't seem to understand that the very forces they are trying so hard to appease now are the same forces that hold the least respect for their most dearly-held beliefs.
