Rachel Maddow Shows There Are Convenient Exceptions to ‘No One Is Above the...
‘Dying’ for Attention: Protesters Unleash the Undeniable Power of Passively Lying on the...
No Need to Hire a Comedian When AP ‘Journalist’ Unintentionally Provides Biggest Laugh...
Andrew McCabe Says Case Against Judge Hannah Dugan is Solid but Arrest Was...
Rachel Maddow and Jamie Raskin Reveal the Dem Party’s New DEI - Dramatic...
Scott Jennings Schools CNN Panelists on why President AOC Would Be a Nightmare...
Another Night Surrounded by Democrats, Scott Jennings Attends the White House Corresponden...
Ontario Must Pay for Man to Have a Vagina Constructed While Leaving His...
Social Worker Has Absolute Meltdown Over Student Loans
Democrats Keep Proving Me Right (and I Hate It)
County Attorney Requiring Prosecutors to Consider Race When Offering Plea Deals
Hello, Gaslight! Democrat Jason Crow Earns EPIC Ratio for Lying About What His...
Susan Rice Goes on a Rant About White Male Christian Cisgender Macho MAGA...
J.K. Rowling Wants THIS Video Saved for Future Generations to See How Stupid...
Conor McGregor Expresses His Support for Irish Marchers Against Mass Immigration

What could go wrong? NYT rationale for determining offensive images 'doesn't seem like a healthy precedent'

As Twitchy reported Monday, the New York Times, which declined to reproduce Charlie Hebdo cartoons on its pages, was called out for their double standard on “art” after publishing a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made out of 17,000 condoms.

Advertisement

The Times’ explained the decision:

The standards editor of the New York Times, Philip B. Corbett, responded to accusations of double standards this way [emphasis ours]:

I don’t think these situations — the Milwaukee artwork and the various Muhammad caricatures — are really equivalent. For one thing, many people might disagree, but museum officials clearly consider this Johnson piece to be a significant artwork. Also, there’s no indication that the primary intent of the portrait is to offend or blaspheme (the artist and the museum both say that it is not intended to offend people but to raise a social question about the fight against AIDS). And finally, the very different reactions bear this out. Hundreds of thousands of people protested worldwide, for instance, after the Danish cartoons were published some years ago. While some people might genuinely dislike this Milwaukee work, there doesn’t seem to be any comparable level of outrage.

Well, at least they admitted it.

Advertisement

No, it doesn’t.


https://twitter.com/instapundit/status/616248939889717249
https://twitter.com/SlapperBitch/status/616250177704300544
https://twitter.com/WBH_Politics/status/616248148055339008

Advertisement


https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/616247841502142464

This FIFY headline is more appropriate:

Nailed it!

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos