Here’re some passages:
New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet called a journalism professor an “a**hole” on Facebook, during an argument over the Times’ decision to not publish theCharlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad.
Journalist and University of Southern California professor Marc Cooper criticized Baquet’s decision to spike photos of the cartoons for sensitivity reasons as “absolute cowardice” on Friday.
“[H]ow many people have to be shot in cold blood before your paper rules that you can show us what provoked the killers?” wrote Cooper in a Facebook post.
Baquet hit back at Cooper in the comment section, calling him an “a**hole” and describing his comment as “thoughtless and arrogant.”
The entire exchange is both funny and instructive.
And here’re several thoughts on the whole kerfuffle:
- Prof. Cooper was right. The New York Times is made up of cowards. Anyone who’s been paying attention has known that for a long time.
- It was interesting to see that people at the Times had to come up with a tortured rationale for what really amounts to a refusal to stand up for free speech, regardless of the consequences. Then, when questioned about the tortured rationale, they did as the left always does: accused the questioner of evil intent. This is the modus operandi of the American left. Remember, no one laughed out of the room the leftist idea that opposition to Obama’s policies is racism.
- The Times would have no problem whatsoever — and they’ve done it in the past — publishing cartoons lampooning Christians or Christianity or even Jesus Christ or, famously, the Virgin Mary.
- It is important to remark that when it came down to it, when the rubber hit the road — even more than 3,000 miles away in France — the vaunted New York Times … chickened out.
- In times like these, there are people who will rise to the occasion, and those who won’t. The Times didn’t. I guess that “freedom of speech” isn’t really all that important to the poobahs of the Times, after all.
- Those of us who have been paying attention have known for a very long time that freedom of speech is not all that important to the Times anyway. They do not permit certain speech in their pages. Period.
- Cooper wrote: “[H]ow many people have to be shot in cold blood before your paper rules that you can show us what provoked the killers?” Oof! If I were Baquet, I might react defensively, like a petulant, uneducated poltroon, too.
- There will be many, many more incidents like the one in France, unless the west wakes up to it. Does anyone really think that hand-wringing, sincere-sounding, ever-so-pious (and obviously fake) declarations that we just love Islam so much, will change the baboons’ minds? Let’s face it, the gibbering baboons, want us to convert or die. The gibbering baboons keep saying it and saying it and saying it and saying it and saying it again. Not a single one of them has ever said anything different. Why would we think they don’t mean it?
- If I were one of the gibbering baboons, (1) I’d know that all those sniveling protestations of love for Islam are fake, and (2) they wouldn’t change my mind in the least.
- This is exactly like in the 1930’s. If the eventual allies had stood up to Hitler early on, there would have been no Holocaust.
- It’s long past “early on” as it pertains to Islam.
- If those in the the rest of the world who are not islamic scum were to say with a united voice, “Enough!” and implement common sense policies and strategies, islamic terrorism would stop today.
- That will not happen. There has never been such an assemblage of dim-bulb mediocrities facing the islamic threat (as well as the Putin threat and the Communist China threat and the North Korea threat, and, and, and…) since … well, since the 1930’s. It didn’t turn out well then, either.