Buyer’s Remorse? Scott Jennings Lays to Rest Notion that MAGA Voters Are Leaving...
Victor Davis Hanson: Leftist Europeans Drew Inspiration From Democrat Party in Jailing Mar...
Elie Mystal Wants to Eliminate Voter Registration Laws Because He Claims Fraud Doesn’t...
Family-Run Brewery Destroyed by Hurricane Helene Gets Help Rebuilding From Unexpected Bene...
Cory Booker Say He Doesn’t Define Himself by Who He’s Against After Going...
Don’t Expect 24/7 Coverage of Teen Stabbed at Track Meet
Rep. Jasmine Crockett Is Going to Say She Doesn’t Like Elon Musk ‘50,000...
New Book: Barack Obama Worked 'Behind the Scenes' to Derail Kamala Harris
Letitia James Heard About a Head Start Program Closed Down Because of Trump's...
Stephanie Turner Female Athlete Who Refused to Fence Against a Male Speaks Out...
Listen, Fat: '60 Minutes' Is LYING to You About Obesity and Weight Loss
Katie Pavlich Has a GREAT Idea That Would Keep the Formerly Taxpayer Funded...
LOL: FactPost Wants You to Believe That Grocery Prices Have Already Increased By...
See You in Court! Michigan Judge Okay's White Man's Racial Discrimination Suit Against...
Sen. Mazie Hirono Declares Dan Bongino Is Not at All Qualified

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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement