Following on from the recent (prideful!) admission of the BBC’s director-general that the network has a double-standard when it comes to religious criticism (Islam is no go, but Christianity is fair game), it seems the New York Times is pursuing the same policy.
Having published an anti-Catholic advertisement by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, execs at the Times have opted, at least for the time being, not to publish an anti-Islam ad that mirrors the very same language of the anti-Catholic one:
Why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters? Can’t you see how misplaced your loyalty is after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and cover-up going all the way to the top…Join those of us who put humanity above dogma.
And compare:
Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims … [do] you keep identifying with the ideology that threatens liberty for women and menaces freedom by slaughtering, oppressing and subjugating non-Muslims… Join those of us who put humanity above the vengeful, hateful and violent teachings of Islam’s ‘‘prophet.’’
The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue commented that the double-standard was based on ‘‘either [anti-Catholic] bigotry or fear [of Islamic violence], and they’ve painted themselves into that corner.’’
The Times preferred instead to paint a more patriotic picture: ‘‘the fallout from running this ad now,’’ the newspaper claimed, ‘‘could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.’’
Firstly, this seems to confirm Donohue’s conclusion – that, as with the BBC, the threat of violence (literal Islamophobia) ultimately wins the day. Secondly, the Grey Lady doth protest a little too much: this defense will perhaps fall on deaf ears coming from a newspaper that so willingly published the Wikileaks’ cables, apparently without much concern for how they might imperil ‘‘U.S. troops and/or civilians’’ in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
It’s not clear whether it’s more or less noble that the BBC now readily admits its double standard, whereas the Times prefers not to. Either way, the conclusion is the same: there is a reasonable debate to be had about whether these sorts of ads are appropriate, but, like the BBC, the New York Times cannot have it both ways.
"…like the BBC, the New York Times cannot have it both ways" Sure they can. And they do. You are interjecting reason and logic into an arena where everything is merely political. You certainly do not expect that the Duke "rape" saga would have played on the NY Times front page for years had the alleged perpetrators been black and the stripper white? Or that the interminable Valerie Plame story demonstrated a touching Times concern for the welfare of CIA agents? I suspect that the dwindling NY Times readership shares and enjoys the biases that their paper espouses.
right on all counts, unfortunately.
Let's not forget that Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are the signers and sponsors of the ad. Two strong defenders of Western culture, they are anathema to the Times. I saw the article yesterday and thought it was brilliant…in an Andrew Breitbart way. n nGlad to know his spirit is continuing on. There are few things I savor more than a blatant display of hypocrisy by the Times and their ilk.
Commentary would never dare speak my name. n nWeak.
Concerned about the troops?? Then why did they run all those other stories that actually did incite violence against the troops? No they are afraid that if they run it Muslims might actually show up at THEIR door and THEIR precious hides might be at risk. nBig Hollywood and Big Media are the reason I converted to the Catholic faith. I now wish that I had been a Catholic all my life.