The above cartoon was too much for the Washington Post to handle. This is a new low for the so-called “mainstream media.”Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander wrote,
Editors at The Post and many other papers pulled the cartoon and replaced it with one that had appeared previously. They were concerned it might offend and provoke some Post readers, especially Muslims.
Still, Style editor Ned Martel said he decided to yank it, after conferring with others, including Executive Editor Marcus W. Brauchli, because “it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message.” He added that “the point of the joke was not immediately clear” and that readers might think that Muhammad was somewhere in the drawing.
Artist Wiley Miller on being censored:
Miller is fuming. The award-winning cartoonist, who lives in Maine, told me the cartoon was meant to satirize “the insanity of an entire group of people rioting and putting out a hit list over cartoons,” as well as “media cowering in fear of printing any cartoon that contains the word ‘Muhammad.’ ”
“The wonderful irony [is that] great newspapers like The Washington Post, that took on Nixon . . . run in fear of this very tame cartoon, thus validating the accuracy of the satire,” he said by e-mail.
But the Post’s cowardice and poor judgment goes further. Who does Alexander go to for a quote on how Muslims would interpret the cartoon? Muslim Brotherhood front group and un-indicted co-conspirator CAIR:
“The reference [to Muhammad] in this case was so vague that I don’t even know if offense comes into it,” said Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group that combats stereotyping of Islam and Muslims.
Were Tarek Fatah, Raheel Raza, Zuhdi Jasser, and Irshad Manji unavailable? They are the ones who the media should seek for comment and guidance.
Here’s a question that isn’t being asked: did the Post editors actually seek out the thoughts of Muslims before making their decision to pull the cartoon?