[Updates at the end]
The New York Times is the iconic newspaper of the Northeast Liberal point of view. The Times sets the agenda for much of the local media in the country and often seems to either quote or foreshadow the talking points of the left wing of the Democratic party. Their bias is obvious to anyone who takes advantage of alternative sources of information. In the Cartoon Wars, they have outdone themselves in their disingenuousness. This would not matter except that all too many people get all their information from the Times.
In today's Times on-line there is a story purporting to tell the true back-story of the cartoon war that is raging in Europe and throughout Asia and Africa, costing lives and embassies. With my appetite for news whetted, I peruse the article written by Hassan M. Fattah and titled At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized. Here is how Fattah sets the scene:
As leaders of the world's 57 Muslim nations gathered for a summit meeting in Mecca in December, issues like religious extremism dominated the official agenda. But much of the talk in the hallways was of a wholly different issue: Danish cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad.
The closing communiqué took note of the issue when it expressed "concern at rising hatred against Islam and Muslims and condemned the recent incident of desecration of the image of the Holy Prophet Muhammad in the media of certain countries" as well as over "using the freedom of expression as a pretext to defame religions."
The meeting in Mecca, a Saudi city from which non-Muslims are barred, [Emphasis mine- SW] drew minimal international press coverage even though such leaders as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran were in attendance. But on the road from quiet outrage in a small Muslim community in northern Europe to a set of international brush fires, the summit meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference — and the role its member governments played in the outrage — was something of a turning point.
The writer misses the irony of a Saudi city barring people based on their religion, while complaining about how the victimized Muslims are being discriminated against, but there are a couple of more egregious errors of omission that are much more significant.
The article is really quite skillful in its misdirection and the writer deserves praise for writing a piece of propaganda which passes the Times's muster as reportage. He proceeds to describe the efforts of an aggrieved group of Danish Muslims to receive a respectful hearing from the Danish government. They form an umbrella group, the European Committee for Honoring the Prophet, of 27 different Muslim organizations, collect 17,000 signatures on a petition (whose content is not described) but are rebuffed without even an explanation by the Prime Minster. At that point they prepare a dossier to bring to the meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Mecca. The article mentions the three additional cartoons that were included and describes them as "three more shocking images that had been sent to Danish Muslims who had spoken out against the Jyllands-Posten cartoons."
The reporter tries to whitewash the efforts of the totalitarians of the Muslim world who are using this issue to stir up anger and direct at the usual suspects (democracy, the West in general) and concludes with a description of the spread of Muslim discontent, in a quasi-apologetic tone:
"Syria made an even worse miscalculation," he added, alluding to the sense that the protest had gotten out of hand. The issue of the cartoons came at a critical time in the Muslim world because of Muslim anger over the occupation of Iraq and a sense that Muslims were under siege. Strong showings by Islamists in elections in Egypt and the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections had given new momentum to Islamic movements in the region, and many economies, especially those in the Persian Gulf, realized their economic power as it pertained to Denmark.
"The cartoons were a fuse that lit a bigger fire," said Rami Khouri, editor at large at the English-language Daily Star of Beirut. "It is this deepening sense of vulnerability combines with a sense that the Islamists were on a roll that made it happen."
....
Reporting for this article was contributed by Craig S. Smith from Paris, Katherine Zoepf from Beirut, Suha Maayeh from Amman, Abeer Allam from Cairo and Massoud A. Derhally from Dubai.
The article leaves out some salient items, including Amir Taheri's alternate time-line, which is much more consistent and coherent. He report is in the New York Post, RENT-A-RIOT ABCS:
A closer look at the row, however, shows that the whole rigmarole was launched by Sunni-Salafi groups in Europe and Asia, with Ahmadinejad and his Syrian vassal, President Bashar al-Assad, belatedly playing catch-up. God had nothing to do with it.
And how about this; the offensive cartoons appeared in Egypt and prompted nary an outcry:
The strongest possible evidence to support the growing conviction that the "Cartoon Wars" are a politically motivated crisis has been supplied by two Egyptian blogs: Egyptian Sandmonkey and Freedom for Egyptians.
They both report that the Mohammed cartoons, first published by Jyllands-Posten on 30 September last year were republished by the Egyptian Newspaper Al Fagr back on 17 October 2005, during Ramadan, for all the Egyptian muslim population to see. The headline reads: "Continued Boldness. Mocking the Prophet and his Wife by Caricature."
The Egyptian paper critcized the bad taste of the cartoons but it did not incite hatred protests.
The Times also leaves out that the three extra, more noxious, cartoons were only part of a major disinformation campaign fabricated by the very Danish Imams doing all the complaining. Michelle Malkin has a full round-up at THE LYING DANISH IMAMS.
The worst aspect of the Times non-coverage remains their refusal, on grounds of "cultural sensitivity" that has traditionally been missing when it involved attacks on Christianity, to actually show the cartoons. Most commentators have suggested that the refusal to show the cartoons involves a degree of intimidation (Christians have not threatened to behead anyone over Piss Christ or the Dung Madonna that the Times published, again, yesterday) and a misguided need to preserve the left's world view that all non-white, non-American, non-Jews are victims of American, Jewish, and/or Western aggression and cannot be held responsible for their behavior.
I would like to suggest another reason for the Times delicacy in dealing with the cartoons as well as their apparent diffidence in showing the posters many of the protesters have been carrying. If the Times were a news gathering and disseminating organization (and it is likely some of them continue to think that is what they are) then showing the images would require some investigation. It would be problematic for the Times to reveal that the most outrageous and vile hatred appearing in any cartoons in the world emanate from the Muslim media. The Times goes out of its way to avoid these kinds of stories, perhaps fearing that if they show the true nature of our "allies" and "friends" in the Middle East, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, or the perpetual "victims", the Palestinians who danced in celebration of 9/11, the backlash would engulf those who have spent so many years enabling such evil. Further, it is a not very well hidden secret that Saudi oil money makes its way into the pockets of many semi-retired American diplomats, lobbyists, academics; would it be a surprise if there were tendrils of Saudi Arabian money insinuating their way into the hallowed halls of the New York Times? Further, we have learned that Palestinian newsmen were uniformly in the service of the Palestinian cause, bought and paid for by the Palestinians or intimidated into acquiescence.
I am willing to grant the Times the benefit of the doubt and ascribe their dereliction of duty in this matter to incompetence and/or intimidation, rather than venality, but I can't think of any other explanations that fit the non-facts.
None of this would matter if the Times were not an electronic megaphone which has a major impact on the framing and shaping of perceptions of events in the world.
Update: The Anchoress has found a transcript of the Times's editorial meeting where they discussed their approach to the Cartoons and the Dung Virgin piece of "art." She also has a nice round-up of other responses to the story.
Dr. Sanity applies the wisdom of Monty Python in a particularly apt way.
Sigmund, Carl & Alfred defends Michelle and offers kudos to the Anchoress as well. There is something about Michelle that makes us old guys want to defend her from the cheap shots and innuendos of those who have very little to offer beyond attacking those they cannot best in honest debate.
Recent Comments