A matter of sensitivity?

From here:

NEW YORK As a collection of controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad circulates online and through some European publications, prompting numerous acts of violence abroad, nearly all U.S. newspapers have chosen not to publish the cartoons.

Although most American papers have covered the issue, with many running Page One stories, most contend the cartoons are too offensive to run, and can be properly reported through descriptions. While some have linked to the images on the Web, others are considering publishing one or more of them next week.

Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Inquirer, day after complaining that The Associated Press should at least distribute the images and allow members papers to make the call, decided to publish one of the drawings on Saturday.

Why the reticence to publish the cartoons on the part of the U.S. press? Was it for fear for striking anger in the Musli
m world? Was it out of respect for Islamist sensitivities?

Learned Foot had a "Why-didn't-I-think-of-that-myself-while-I-slap-my-forehead" type insight on the matter, having to do with a relatively recent MSM kerfuffle of epic proportions:

Despite the early speculation that the release of photos of some ugly chick pointing at Iraqi prisoners' schlongs might inflame - and offend - Muslims in general and Iraqis in particular, perhaps leading to backlashes and escalated violence against Americans in country, just about every press outlet in existence breathlessly printed every picture they could get their hands on. In one of the more notable self-writing jokes, Ted Kennedy vehemently demanded that all known photos from that prison which showed, uh, exotic interrogation techniques be made public. The New York Times had a front page article about the incident EVERY SINGLE DAY for something like four months. Damn the consequences! Sure, the pictures and the deeds depicted in them may be "offensive" or "inflammatory" but, damn it, the people had a right to know. Not only did we have a right to know, but the papers apparently thought we had the right to be bludgeoned about the head repeatedly by the story until all perspective was lost.

SO why the all of a sudden concern over the sensitivities for muslims in the American MSM's refusal to print the offending cartoons? IMO, the answer is quite simple. There's nothing in the cartoon story that fits their "Bash Bush at any cost" template.

I guess it can all be summed up in flow charts--thus:

• Story that may offend Muslims--> Potentially damaging to Bush/U.S. Military/Iraq War effort?-->HELL YES!!--Damn Muslim sensitivities-->PRINT IT

• Story that may offend Muslims-->Potentially damaging to Bush/U.S. Military/Iraq War effort?--->NO--->CAN IT.

Somehow applying the term "two-faced" appears woefully inadequate in this case, does it not?



(Filed under the fifth column, religion of peace?)