Bunch of Cowards...

[honeybunny]

Just the latest example :


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/eric-scheiner/2015/01/14/msnbcs-maddow-shows-piss-christ-not-latest-charlie-hebdo


:girlsaysno

 

[ShoeDiva]

Just the latest example :


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/eric-scheiner/2015/01/14/msnbcs-maddow-shows-piss-christ-not-latest-charlie-hebdo


:girlsaysno

I am not sure what you are saying? Is it because Maddow showed the Christ one in 2011? Was that when it was vandalized, or destroyed/harmed? The Christ one was not a magazine cover, but "art" from years ago. (The artist won stuff and people were outraged at the time because of money funding or something along that line.)

 

[honeybunny]

Just the latest example :


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/eric-scheiner/2015/01/14/msnbcs-maddow-shows-piss-christ-not-latest-charlie-hebdo


:girlsaysno

I am not sure what you are saying? Is it because Maddow showed the Christ one in 2011? Was that when it was vandalized, or destroyed/harmed? The Christ one was not a magazine cover, but "art" from years ago. (The artist won stuff and people were outraged at the time because of money funding or something along that line.)

The mainstream media (in this case NBC) is censoring the news to avoid offending Muslims.

Yet they are clearly comfortable offending Christians.

Islam is being afforded special status out of fear.

 

[ShoeDiva]

Just the latest example :


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/eric-scheiner/2015/01/14/msnbcs-maddow-shows-piss-christ-not-latest-charlie-hebdo


:girlsaysno

I am not sure what you are saying? Is it because Maddow showed the Christ one in 2011? Was that when it was vandalized, or destroyed/harmed? The Christ one was not a magazine cover, but "art" from years ago. (The artist won stuff and people were outraged at the time because of money funding or something along that line.)

The mainstream media (in this case NBC) is censoring the news to avoid offending Muslims.

Yet they are clearly comfortable offending Christians.

Islam is being afforded special status out of fear.

:dunno Ok? I do see that some are stating they do not want to offend some of their viewers and are looking at the risk to their employees. I do not agree with that, but their decision, we can still see the picture elsewhere so I am not sure of what real stand they are making. As for that art, I just do not see it as the same issue, especially is it was shown as a picture of art destroyed. (or whatever happened to it, I have not looked it up) I do not make the correlation between the two as one is okay to show because it will offend Christians, but the other is not because it will offend Muslims. Winning art (whether we like it or not...and I do not like this "art" FTR) is just not the same as a magazine cover. IMO
Has Maddow shown some of the other covers from that magazine? God, the Pope, they have had a bunch we would find not in good taste.

 

[honeybunny]

Just the latest example :


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/eric-scheiner/2015/01/14/msnbcs-maddow-shows-piss-christ-not-latest-charlie-hebdo


:girlsaysno

I am not sure what you are saying? Is it because Maddow showed the Christ one in 2011? Was that when it was vandalized, or destroyed/harmed? The Christ one was not a magazine cover, but "art" from years ago. (The artist won stuff and people were outraged at the time because of money funding or something along that line.)

The mainstream media (in this case NBC) is censoring the news to avoid offending Muslims.

Yet they are clearly comfortable offending Christians.

Islam is being afforded special status out of fear.

:dunno Ok? I do see that some are stating they do not want to offend some of their viewers and are looking at the risk to their employees. I do not agree with that, but their decision, we can still see the picture elsewhere so I am not sure of what real stand they are making. As for that art, I just do not see it as the same issue, especially is it was shown as a picture of art destroyed. (or whatever happened to it, I have not looked it up) I do not make the correlation between the two as one is okay to show because it will offend Christians, but the other is not because it will offend Muslims. Winning art (whether we like it or not...and I do not like this "art" FTR) is just not the same as a magazine cover. IMO
Has Maddow shown some of the other covers from that magazine? God, the Pope, they have had a bunch we would find not in good taste.

My panties are in a twist because of the blatant dishonesty and huge double standard by many in the media.

They are pretending that this new found respect for religious sensitivity has always been the policy,
yet there are numerous clear examples where "offensive" stories about other religions are featured.

The piss Christ, Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, atheist billboards... there were no second thoughts about those images.
Yet the special snowflakes of Islam are being treated as if they might snap at the slightest innocent provocation. I find the
entire ridiculous exercise of sanitizing the coverage amazing. It goes against the foundations of western liberal democracy.

CBS news spent 2 minutes last night reporting on French people swarming newsstands to buy the new Charlie magazine.
The dizzy edits to avoid showing the actual cover were embarrassing. An entire report that failed to report the actual news.

Just yesterday, Oxford University Press (one of the largest publishers in the world), announced that authors will be forbidden
from using the words : pork, sausage, bacon, or pigs in their work. George Orwell could not have known how right he was...


Freedom is not free, it must be continuously and vigilantly defended.


:sermon

 

[ShoeDiva]

My panties are in a twist because of the blatant dishonesty and huge double standard by many in the media.

They are pretending that this new found respect for religious sensitivity has always been the policy,
yet there are numerous clear examples where "offensive" stories about other religions are featured.

The piss Christ, Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, atheist billboards... there were no second thoughts about those images.
Yet the special snowflakes of Islam are being treated as if they might snap at the slightest innocent provocation. I find the
entire ridiculous exercise of sanitizing the coverage amazing. It goes against the foundations of western liberal democracy.

CBS news spent 2 minutes last night reporting on French people swarming newsstands to buy the new Charlie magazine.
The dizzy edits to avoid showing the actual cover were embarrassing. An entire report that failed to report the actual news.

Just yesterday, Oxford University Press (one of the largest publishers in the world), announced that authors will be forbidden
from using the words : pork, sausage, bacon, or pigs in their work. George Orwell could not have known how right he was...


Freedom is not free, it must be continuously and vigilantly defended.


:sermon

First I just have to say you made me laugh out loud with the highlighted red part. I know you are not trying to make a joke, but I did laugh.

Again, I do agree with the fact the covering the picture is really not doing anything to protect anyone. Report it and be done with it.

I can not comment on the Oxford thing because this is the first I have heard of this. That is a bit ridiculous...I will go find an article because I just can not fathom words like that being not allowed. That makes no sense to me. :dunno

 

[ShoeDiva]

I did go find an article on the Oxford thing...ridiculous, but most are agreeing that it is.

Oxford University Press bans mention of pork and pigs in books to 'avoid offending Muslims or Jews'

The guidance issue was also condemned as "ludicrous" by Muslim Labour MP Khalid Mahmood.

He added: "That's absolute, utter nonsense and when people go too far that actually brings the whole discussion into disrepute."

A spokesperson for the Jewish Leadership Council added: "Jewish law prohibits eating pork, not the mention of the word, or the animal from which it derives."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/oxford-university-press-bans-mention-pork-pigs-books-avoid-offending-muslims-jews-1483378


From OUP: http://global.oup.com/news-items/current/Statement_about_editorial_guidelines?cc=us

:dunno

 

[honeybunny]

My panties are in a twist because of the blatant dishonesty and huge double standard by many in the media.

They are pretending that this new found respect for religious sensitivity has always been the policy,
yet there are numerous clear examples where "offensive" stories about other religions are featured.

The piss Christ, Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, atheist billboards... there were no second thoughts about those images.
Yet the special snowflakes of Islam are being treated as if they might snap at the slightest innocent provocation. I find the
entire ridiculous exercise of sanitizing the coverage amazing. It goes against the foundations of western liberal democracy.

CBS news spent 2 minutes last night reporting on French people swarming newsstands to buy the new Charlie magazine.
The dizzy edits to avoid showing the actual cover were embarrassing. An entire report that failed to report the actual news.

Just yesterday, Oxford University Press (one of the largest publishers in the world), announced that authors will be forbidden
from using the words : pork, sausage, bacon, or pigs in their work. George Orwell could not have known how right he was...


Freedom is not free, it must be continuously and vigilantly defended.


:sermon

First I just have to say you made me laugh out loud with the highlighted red part. I know you are not trying to make a joke, but I did laugh.

Again, I do agree with the fact the covering the picture is really not doing anything to protect anyone. Report it and be done with it.

I can not comment on the Oxford thing because this is the first I have heard of this. That is a bit ridiculous...I will go find an article because I just can not fathom words like that being not allowed. That makes no sense to me. :dunno

Best estimates are that some 10 to 15 % Islam followers are truly radical.

If I were a "regular" Muslim I would be insulted by this media treatment...

The Mayor of Rotterdam said it best the other day... you should Google that.


:thumbsup

 

[Grey Colson]

I believe it was more news organizations than just CNN and the NYT. Mohammad is the Muslim prophet so I do not see an issue with their statement in the article not to show the prophet. (That is a factual statement in that he is considered a prophet, maybe not mine or yours, but that is what he is considered. JMO) I believe they stated worry for their employees, and that they might change their mind about publishing the cover.
I do think they should publish it because it is not like we are not all seeing it anyway.

When has any mainstream news organization referred to Jesus Christ as "Lord and Savior" ? ? ?

Never...of course. But Mohammad was sho-nuf a profit alright....a false one. But I clearly understand what you are saying :thumbsup