The New York Times was caught in an obvious double-standard of what art it considers “fit to print” when it featured a portrait Tuesday of Pope Benedict XVI made of 17,000 condoms.
Mocking Catholics is A-OK at The Times. Muslims are a different story.
In January, The Times used respect for religion to justify its decision to withhold images of the Prophet Muhammad that appeared on the cover of Charlie Hebdo magazine — images of unquestionable news value since they prompted attacks by Muslim extremists on the magazine’s offices in Paris.
“[Some] Muslims view any depictions of the Prophet Muhammad as blasphemous,” the Times explained, adding “some of the more inflammatory Charlie Hebdo drawings are purposefully offensive — featuring, for example, drawings of the prophet in pornographic poses.”
Yet Times editors OK’d the portrait of the pope, titled “Eggs Benedict” by Niki Johnson, certain that it would be offensive to many Roman Catholics.
Appearing online and in Tuesday’s print version of the newspaper, the Times wrote that the portrait has “upset Roman Catholic leaders in Milwaukee, where the piece is housed.”
“Our hope is that the piece will bring not only controversy, but room for conversation about the underlying discussion the artist intended as well as regarding the role of art in public discussion,” Dan Keegan, director of the Milwaukee Art Museum said in a statement, the Times reported.
Twitter users noted the hypocrisy with scorn.
So the @nytimes will publish a photo of “condom Pope” but not of Mohammed cartoon? Compare http://t.co/siM6MAgPie to http://t.co/dOmZJbgSct
— Ari Armstrong (@ariarmstrong) June 30, 2015
Times STILL won’t reprint Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Catholics won’t go Knights Templar on their hypocritical asses. https://t.co/AbZXUY9M2o
— Popehat (@Popehat) June 29, 2015
NY Times Publishes Mosaic Of Pope “Made of 17,000 Non-Lubricated Condoms” LET’S PUBLISH ONE WITH MUHAMMAD! https://t.co/OElatF49qk
— I’m your Huckleberry (@BringTheFlag) June 30, 2015
UNREAL: Compare the New York Times Photo of the Pope vs. Muhammad http://t.co/l7xH0bFmoi pic.twitter.com/Z6dSZUx0LJ
— Young Conservatives (@YoungCons) June 30, 2015
NY Times: No Picture of Muhammad, But They Will Print This: http://t.co/Y3whpM3eRy
— Liberal Forum (@Liberal_Forum) June 30, 2015
@nytimes But you won’t publish a portrait of Muhammad? What hypocrites you are.
— Faye Hamilton (@FayeHamilton1) June 29, 2015
.@nytimes Spoiler alert: No one will get shot at over this either.
— CounterMoonbat (@CounterMoonbat) June 29, 2015
@nytimes “We’re hypocrites and cowards, and we find we’re pretty ok with that.”
— Paterfamilias (@PaterFam27) June 29, 2015
@nytimes How utterly brave of you to show art denigrating a leader of the Catholic Church. Aren’t you worried about a terrorist attack?
— BayAreaFrau (@bayareahausfrau) June 29, 2015
The Times’ hypocrisy is received loud and clear.
@nytimes You sick, hypocrical leftist a-holes are so smug. Show a portrait of Muhammad made out of condoms. Cowards! Christians r fair game.
— Pure Applesauce (@Flyingright1) June 30, 2015
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
