Paul notes this:
More than two years previously, in April 2003, a Danish cartoonist Christoffer Zieler offered some cartoons of Jesus Christ to Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest daily paper and generally seen as right-wing.
One of the paper's editors told Zieler: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."
No such concern prevailed when Jyllands-Posten decided to solicit drawings of Muhammad after a children's author, Kare Bluitgen, had been unable to find illustrators for his book about the Prophet (written with the intention of widening understanding). The illustrators refused either because they knew that portraits of the Prophet were against Islamic tradition, or were afraid of reprisals.
It's my understanding the latter is the case and subsequent actions by Muslims bears that out. And here is the crux of the matter. The paper didn't publish the Muhammad cartoons after refusing to print the Jesus because of some "inconsistency" as Paul maintains. Sensing that there was a much bigger story here, the fact that illustrators were afraid to draw Muhammad, afraid of Muslim violence, the paper deliberately set out to test the waters.
One look at the cartoons shows just how tame they really are. Except for the turban as a bomb one, the rest are pretty lame.
Paul also conviently fails to point out the most vile cartoons Muslims print about the West and other religions - daily.
Jyllands-Posten's point is that Muslims can attack and criticize in the most vile manner any religion they want, but we must not criticize or even draw Muhammad. That is what this is all about and not about hypocrisy on the part of Jyllands-Posten.
Paul does go on to note some important facts that most MSM are keeping from you, namely the "pig face" cartoon and the fact that the original cartoons were published in Egypt back in 2005. Sadly, after publishing an article about the impact bloggers are having on the news and Paul's own transformation, an article in which he gave bloggers credit for discovering both facts, Paul neglects to give bloggers credit in this story.
From Paul's earlier report:
One of the pictures being circulated, a very fuzzy, grey photocopy, apparently showed the prophet Muhammad with the face of a pig.
It was quickly pointed out, by bloggers and others, that this was not one of the 12 Danish cartoons.
Nobody however knew the origin of this portrayal.
Then I received an e-mail from a reader passing on a link to a blog called neandernews.
And there it was.
The picture had nothing to do with the prophet. It was a photo of the winner of a "pig-squealing" competition held last summer in the French Pyrenees. It had first been published on the MSNBC website in August.
Paul later updated that report, a welcome new trend in his reporting, to say this:
(Update: I also have to say that bloggers found out that the Danish cartoons were in fact published in an Egyptian newspaper last October. See link to WorldNetDaily on the right.)
At the end of Paul's report on bloggers, Richard Sambrook, head of the BBC World Service and Global News Division, had this to say:
As for using blogs as a source he says: "The key is careful attribution. It would be a big mistake for the MSM to try to match the blogs, but they can teach us lessons about openness and honesty. The MSM should concentrate on what it can do - explain, analyse and verify."
Paul should have at least given the bloggers he quoted earlier the same credit in this report, they deserve that much.
In his conclusion Paul makes a huge mistake, if that is what it is. My regular readers will take note that I'm being very kind to Paul here. Time will tell if such "mistakes" continue.
Here is Paul's big mistake:
But they also led moderate elements within the Muslim community to rally their forces and this they did with a demonstration in Trafalgar Square.
Nothing could be further from the truth and for Paul not to have investigated those that rallied "their forces" borders on professional negligence. This folks is why we have bloggers.
See here and here for the terror links to the organizers of last Saturday's protest.
Mark Steyn has some thoughts on so called moderate Muslims.
And I could be wrong, but I don't believe the BBC have published this poll that shows Britain is fed up with all of this and want the cartoons published.
The decision to publish the cartoons - and the reprint of them elsewhere - was backed by more than two to one, 56% to 29%.
Sometimes it's what the BBC leave out of a story that's most important of all. If it wasn't for bloggers you'd be none the wiser.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment