Mr. Gutfeld has a point, so I'm going to quote it in its entirety:
GREG GUTFELD: So the Washington Post removed the October 3 “Non Sequitur” cartoon from its rag. The reason? It mentioned, not showed, Mohammed. There wasn’t even a picture of him anywhere. But the Post and some other papers still pulled it.
Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander asked his style editor why, and he said, “It seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message.” He added that “the point of the joke was not immediately clear.”
Yeah, the reason is ambiguity. Weasel. Anyway, here’s the cartoon. Yeah, that’s really outrageous. And so here we see another callow editor making a cowardly decision based on a fear of upsetting religious fanatics, a fear he can’t even admit to his co-workers. Which leads me to my only point: why is it that the media keeps reminding us that we shouldn’t exaggerate the threat of a small group of radicals, but then completely changes tact when it comes to their own personal safety?
Think about it: if the average Joe expresses anxiety over Islamic fundamentalism, they’re called Islamophobes. But if an editor removes a comic in which Mohammed isn’t even present, that’s not honest to Allah Islamophobia?
Look, the media can’t have it both ways. They cannot criticize the public for concerns over Islam and then pull this stunt over a fear they may get stabbed in front of a Starbucks. If their governing principle in the newsroom is fear, then they should admit it and get the hell off our backs for feeling pretty much the same way.
For “Fox News Watch,” I’m Greg Gutfeld.
The true test of "Islamophobia" isn't someone doing something in full provocation of the religion, it's someone doing something in fear of that religion... That's what a phobia is.
No comments:
Post a Comment