There you have it,.
Its official now.

Its abject fear, not some lofty 'respect' thats been driving the media's behaviour vis-avis the cartoon jihad. As if folks needed to be told about this again.

But we'll remember this the next time the media pushes some Christ-bashing POS in the name of art.

Big media's glory days are truly over. And they're fighting to stave off the gory days now. Literally.

Posted by: voletti at February 19, 2006 4:15 PM

My hat is off to the Phoenix and the Boston Globe. At least they are coming out and printing what CNN didn't have the guts to admit on the air.

Posted by: Foehammer at February 19, 2006 4:19 PM

''Our primary reason," the editors confessed, is ''fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do . . . Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and . . . could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year-publishing history."

I think this is an effective way to express the problems with Islam. If a paper is not going to publish the cartoons, this frank honesty emphasizing Islamic terror is about as good as it gets. What's CAIR going to do, call them Islamophobes?

Posted by: Archimedes at February 19, 2006 4:19 PM

if we have an ad that has the comics in it for an advertisement can a paper refuse to publish it? Or with web addresses as a anouncement?

Posted by: mark52 at February 19, 2006 4:19 PM

Folks, Jyllands-Posten's cultural editor Flemming Rose writes this article on why he published the cartoons.
http://islamwatch.forumup.in/viewtopic.php?t=218

Posted by: Archimedes at February 19, 2006 4:22 PM

They must be lying or being sensational because this is the first I've heard about the press not printing for fear of violent retaliation...

CNN and the BBC are being sensitive: They are not scared, nor is the NY Times or The Guardian.

I mean, I just can't believe that the Boston Globe would break ranks with the world's press and suggest the press is not the "free press" but "intimidated press"

This is an absolute disgrace and they should appologize at once for their shortsighted insensitivity.

I think CAIR should take up this case and force them to publish so they do not get away with saying Islam is violent. I'm sure CAIR will stop this PeodoProphetPhobia by "persuading" them to publish under threat of litigation.

Posted by: exposesithlords at February 19, 2006 4:27 PM

Brilliant move by The Phoenix. CAIR is effectively neutralized and the the establishment media ends up looking even more pathetic than before.

Posted by: Lepanto at February 19, 2006 4:36 PM

Just shows how craven the MSM is. They're willing to risk the lives of average Americans by exposing secret government anti-terrorist programs. They're also willing to risk the lives of American soldiers by printing Abu Ghraib(sp) photos. But they are way too cowardly to put their own butts on the line in the cause of freedom by printing Danish cartoons.I think I'll throw up the next time I hear someone at the NYT or CNN say how brave they are in exposing the latest anti-terrorist strategy of the Bush administration.

Posted by: Roxane at February 19, 2006 4:42 PM

Bravo. This is far better than if they had actually printed the drawings, since it cuts right to the bone of the problem.

It almost sounds like they had decided to publish the drawings, and then someone said "Hey, wouldn't it be even more effective if we write that we are afraid to publish them?".

Posted by: ExpatriateDK at February 19, 2006 4:49 PM

In Canada a press conference held by many Islamic org's made a implied threat to the media, while claiming to be the "Real" Muslims following the "True" Islam ,the spokesperson praised Muslim-Canadians for not responding in violence.

But during the Q&A session with reporters after the Statements the speaker refused to rule out violence and hatefull protests against foreign buildings of Diplomacy , the comment made was "As long as the Canadian media acts responsibly by avoiding offensive material that incites violences , I see no reason for the current protests to become violent" .

This is censorship by proxy folks, Sharia-Law was given the boot from Ontario and now it looks like the Whahabi's are still trying to impose Islam by proxy as well.

There was one good thing that came out of this meeting, the speaker finally confirmed that the 0.0003% of the worlds Muslims that have the real version of Islam are right herer in Canada.
This proved my point that it's unfair to label 99.9997% of the worlds Muslims just by the action and behaviour of a minority of them in Canada.

Remember, it was Hooper from CAIR that used that same adage on 9/12/01 to make sure people didn't judge all Muslims from the actions of 19 Saudis that slaughtered 3000 people for Allah.

NO ISLAM - KNOW PEACE

Posted by: ala-sux at February 19, 2006 4:49 PM

I live in Boston and read The Boston Globe and The Boston Phoenix. I mentioned about the Phoenix's dhimwit reaction in my blog last 2/14:

http://aardvark.iblog.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=15891

Posted by: Rafa at February 19, 2006 5:25 PM

''Our primary reason," the editors confessed, is ''fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do . . . Simply stated, we are being terrorized

This editorial is even better then publishing the cartoons.

So now lets see those newspapers that DID NOT publish the cartoons, truthfully write why they did not do so.

This will be fun. I suppose the politicians who have been pandering to the islamists, will now appeal to the newspapers NOT to publish such editorials.

Posted by: DP111 at February 19, 2006 5:42 PM

Did that headline initially catch anyone else's eye as "When cows fear the media?"

Anyway, the Phoenix' course of action seems like a half-measure. While they've put a spotlight on the elephant in the room-- never mind who may be offended, they don't want to die-- they're codifying a double standard for "offensive" publications: If we're scared enough of you, we won't publish it.

Would anyone happen to know of a list of papers in the US that have published the cartoons? Just curious.

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 19, 2006 5:59 PM

I'm with Lepanto, ExpatDK, and DP111 - this is even better than publishing the cartoons because nothing will wake people up to the threat of Islam like being bluntly informed that their freedoms are already gone!

Plus, it has the admirable virtue of truth and honesty. And that's what I expect from the press (even as I can empathize with their concerns about real threats to their staff and families).

exposesithlords: "I think CAIR should take up this case and force them to publish so they do not get away with saying Islam is violent."

Very astute observation of an interesting twist here. Be careful what you wish for CAIR and all that. LOL!

Posted by: Caroline at February 19, 2006 6:18 PM

Meanwhile, in unrelated news the dutch strike back.

http://www.retecool.com/comments.php?id=13539_0_1_0_C

A veritable treasure trove of Mohammed comedy!

Posted by: ExpatriateDK at February 19, 2006 6:22 PM

Maybe the Phoenix is being straight with us and themselves. Maybe not. See Publish and Perish

Posted by: pbswatcher at February 19, 2006 6:27 PM

I think this is an effective way to express the problems with Islam. If a paper is not going to publish the cartoons, this frank honesty emphasizing Islamic terror is about as good as it gets. What's CAIR going to do, call them Islamophobes? Posted by: Archimedes

Looking at it, it is mind-boggingly brilliant. While publishing the cartoons may have had the same effect, it can arguably be said to have served the Mohammedan vermin in dar ul islam a pretext with which to attack Western embassies and businesses. (although given the attack on the US embassies in Indonesia, one can argue that such a pretext was un-needed).

But by pulishing the truth about why the cartoons weren't shown, the same effect is achieved as would be had the cartoons been published across the board. That way, while Mohammedan tempers here may not be raised, the infidel public gets to know what it would have by seeing the cartoons, and then contrasting that with the worldwide outcry.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 19, 2006 6:28 PM

- "we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year-publishing history." -

Well, thats OK. There is always radical criticism of the war on terror to keep you brave journalists at the Phoenix warm at night. No risk there.

Posted by: THw6kds at February 19, 2006 6:59 PM

pathetic cowards

Posted by: THw6kds at February 19, 2006 7:00 PM

- "But by pulishing the truth about why the cartoons weren't shown, the same effect is achieved as would be had the cartoons been published across the board. That way, while Mohammedan tempers here may not be raised, the infidel public gets to know what it would have by seeing the cartoons, and then contrasting that with the worldwide outcry." -

No offense, but how the hell is printing a story for all the world to read about how the infidel so fears his muslim tormentors that they can force him to his knees and bend him to the will of Islam. The rabid crowds of muslim sub-humans will revel in the pathetic bleatings of a cowardly, hypocritical, leftist publication as evidence of the global power of the muslim street. Real helpful. (like we in the west really needed the phoenix to tell us that the western media are cowards and hypocrites).

Posted by: THw6kds at February 19, 2006 7:06 PM

No offense, but how the hell is printing a story for all the world to read about how the infidel so fears his muslim tormentors that they can force him to his knees and bend him to the will of Islam. The rabid crowds of muslim sub-humans will revel in the pathetic bleatings of a cowardly, hypocritical, leftist publication as evidence of the global power of the muslim street. Real helpful. (like we in the west really needed the phoenix to tell us that the western media are cowards and hypocrites).

Look at the target audience here. It isn't the Islamists, it isn't CAIR, it isn't those maggots from Mahgreb to Bandar Seri Begawan. It is the infidels i.e. the US public. As it is, we howl when any threat to our 1st amendment rights - real or imagined - is perceived. But on this story, all the crap about respect for ones religious sentiments have managed cloud the fact that the fear of the Islamists is why the cartoons aren't being published.

By publishing this confession instead, we make it more difficult for Islamic thugs here to demonstrate, but at the same time, we alert the rest of the infidel public, most of whom have nothing to do here at D/W, about what is at stake.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 19, 2006 7:18 PM

THw6kds - this is a huge step up from the lies and pablum we've seen in the western press to date about "sensitivity" and the "tolerance" of other faiths and blah blah blah - barf.

The whole point of Jyllands-Posten publishing the cartoons in the first place was to call attention to the very real fact of self-censorship in the western press. The point was never about some cartoons of Muhammad, per se.

Many people have pointed out, in the wake of the worldwide riots and Muslim violence, that evidently Jyllands-Posten was correct in the first place about self-censorship.

But that whole message has been completely diluted by the lies of western media giving their bogus explanations about why they chose not to publish the cartoons.

The Phoenix, on the contrary, by flat out and honestly explaining why they can't publish the cartoons, is essentially picking up the original story that Jyllands-Posten intended to tell.

Namely, the story that due to Islam's inroads into the west, one of the west's most cherished freedoms is literally under assault and threat.

That's the story. The Pheonix is telling it. Now let's see other papers follow suit. They can't beg off now by complaining that they will be killed if they cover this story about the threat that Islam poses to basic western values. No. This is the story they need to cover and The Pheonix is showing them an alternative way to cover it. There's more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak.

Posted by: Caroline at February 19, 2006 7:23 PM

- "we make it more difficult for Islamic thugs here to demonstrate, but at the same time, we alert the rest of the infidel public," -

I understand your theory but in practice, it is just another example of cowardice in the face of muslim violence. The Phoenix deserves a gold plated dhimmi award. Next time they take a shot at the war or the Bush administration or some ediface of western symbolism, what kind of credibility should they be accorded? Sickening cowards is what they are.

Posted by: THw6kds at February 19, 2006 7:24 PM

From Shinolite: 'Did that headline initially catch anyone else's eye as "When cows fear the media?"'

Exactly. The very next thought was "South Park."

Posted by: Stendec at February 19, 2006 7:24 PM

The same fear has been expressed by others, editors of major newspapers, but only in private. Not all of them have chosen to rationalize their fear in the manner of The New Duranty Times.

The Phoenix is deserving of praise for putting their reason so bluntly.

The entire press, in what may still be described as the civilized world, should choose a day, or a week, within which to print, the entire 12 cartoons. Otherwise, how can anyone judge the supposed offense, and compare that supposed offense with the offense given routinely to all other religions?

It has already been noted that many representations of Muhammad have appeared in the past. For example, in "The Islamic World," edited by Stuart Cary Welch, a volume devoted to the Islamic art in the Metropolitan, on p. 95, one finds "The Night Journey of Muhammad on his Stead Buraq": Leaf from the Bustan of Sa'di. copied by calligrapher Sultan-Muhammad Nur of Central Asia (Bukhara); 1514.

Welch's text notes that "The Mir'aj or Night Journey of the Prophet on his human-headed steed in an angel-filled sky had become, during the fifteenth century, part of the standard pictorail repertoire and often appeared as an illustration for the first poem of the poet Nizami's Khamseh (Quintet)."

So it is false for Muslims to claim that no representation of Muhammad is acceptable. But that of course is not what the excitement is about. It is about deciding Who's Boss. Are we the Muslims to rule, and to enforce whatever restrictions we feel like imposing, on the Danish (and, by extension, all other) Infidels, or not? Either we shall cow them into submission, with every kind of threat and menace, from economic boycotts and recalled ambassadors to mob violence and deliberate murder of whatever local Christians can be used as stand-ins (as those 15 murdered black African Christians in Nigeria).

This is the question: will Islam "dominate" in Europe, and will Infidels everywhere now limit their ability to criticize Muhammad -- and not only in image, but of course in words as well, for that is clearly the next step, to throttle all discussion by Infidels of the nature, the tenets, the attitudes, that Islam so clearly contains, for the murderous hostility to Infidels is not tangential to Islam, but central. And Muhammad, the Perfect Man as Muslims see him (as the Muslim imam in Denmark proclaimed him on "60 Minutes" in a sermon, for some reason delivered in English), is not seen as close to perfect, but as something quite different, by all sensible Infidels who have looked into his sayings and acts and silences. Indeed, hardly a sane Infidel can come way without being shaken and horrified at what he learns of this man, supposedly uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.

Posted by: Hugh at February 19, 2006 7:25 PM

- "This is the question: will Islam "dominate" in Europe, and will Infidels everywhere now limit their ability to criticize Muhammad --" -

The answer to that is already evident! Mobs of raging, illeterate, pre-modern lunatics burning flags in East Bumfukistan can literally make the most radical of leftist free-speech, firebrand publications toe the islamic line, let alone the so-called "mainstream" press. It is no longer a "question". Islam dominates. Am I missing something here? Doesn't anybody watch the "news"?? (of course they do!) That "question" has been answered in spades.

Posted by: THw6kds at February 19, 2006 7:35 PM

THw6kds is right. After digging for, and discovering the original editorial, rather than Jeff Jacoby's column, I change my opinion. Note that the points made by Caroline, DP111, ExpatriateDK, et al would still be valid if they were made by a paper that decided to follow this course of action due to the reasons given by the posters above.

Caroline, the story that due to Islam's inroads into the west, one of the west's most cherished freedoms is literally under assault and threat - was therefore not what drove the Phoenix. While the first reason is intimidation, the Phoenix had 2 other reasons that pretty much mirrored the other papers that chose to rationalize their decision not to print the cartoons. For the original article, check below

http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid3588.aspx

Apart from the other 2 reasons, the Phoenix also provided links to elsewhere in cyberspace where one could view the cartoons (in this case, the Brussels Journal). This is a complete cop-out. Either they show the cartoons, or they don't, but don't use this to get around it - your readers can google just like anyone else.

But thanks for the idea. That's a neat way for other publications that have yet to cover it to cover it. And college rags could add another reason. They could state:

Out of fear of physical retaliation by Muslims, and professional retaliation by the Campus authorities, we have chosen not to endanger either our lives or our professional careers by publishing these cartoons that offend Islam. We would like you to note that this does not mean that mockery of other religions would not be covered. In those cases, since their adherents would not respond irrationally in a manner that threatens us and puts in jeopardy the lives of innocent people worldwide, we would in such cases feel free to publish cartoons depicting them.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 19, 2006 8:16 PM

Infidel Pride - Aw Jeez IP - thanks for that link. You're right. The Bastards. And they're not only guilty of cowardice, they might even be guilty of incomplete sentences:

"In doing so, they were not only endorsing the Western ideal that freedom of speech should be sacrosanct and that the cartoons to non-Muslims were clearly within the Western tradition of political comment."

(I'm open to correction on that score but it seems to me that the sentence is required to continue: "..they were..." what?.)

But perhaps the most offensive part is the title, "World of Pain".

Would this Muslim "pain", that we've heard so much about, in the wake of the offensive cartoons and in the solicitous western press, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the "pain" that infidels have experienced at the hands of Muslims for 1300 long years now? I'm thinking here of the pain of decapitation, rape, torture, amputation, stoning, and that most insidious and stubborn pain of all - FEAR.

As to your suggested editorial - well said. Bring it on! Let's see campus editorial pages across the country print that in place of where their editorials or cartoons OUGHT to be. They might even place the whole statement beneath a pale, giant gray X - for censored!

I doubt that few of our current college students ever imagined that they would be called on to LITERALLY defend the west's most sacred values, as opposed to playing "pretend revolutionary", tilting at windmills, as their parents did. Forget the tattoos folks. That's just superficial. This here is the real thing.

Posted by: Caroline at February 19, 2006 9:33 PM

Hey! They stole my idea posted on JW/DW about a week or two ago.

I suggested that an editorial page cartoon section in a major newspaper be published blank, and with a printed notice of a similarly craven admisson of sheer cowardice, terrified gutlessness and their shameful failure to uphold Western Civilization as their reason why nothing was being shown on the page in question concerning the Cartoon Jihad. Just admit it: we're self-castrated human jellyfish.

So, not only at these guys world-class spineless chickensh*ts, they're also plagiarists!

They should just close the paper, having admitted they have no point in continuing to publish. And no balls to continue.

Slimy lickspittle little weasels.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 19, 2006 11:33 PM

P.S.-

I looked back and my suggested note, similar to this surrender by the Boston Phoenix paper, was on February 5, 2006, 3:20 p.m., in the comments section for the Dhimmiwatch article entitled "And They'll Probably Kill Us", which mocked this kind of abject press capitulation.

In Japan, at least they then commit literal hara-kiri when they do it metaphorically and metaphysically.

The Phoenix will obviously have to be replaced with The Capon.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 19, 2006 11:50 PM

I believe that the Phoenix's admission, and Jacoby's sentiments, are more thought provoking than even the drawings themselves.

Most Westerners have already seen the cartoons in print or on the web. So, at this time, the story should be about the 'fear factor'.

But fear is not the only aspect of the story worth exploiting. This should also be an opportunity to expose the chaotic and often contradictatory interpretations amongst individual Muslims about Islamic beliefs, and to force them into a public squabble and the admission that there is no unifying voice in Islam.

UBL's interpretations of Islamic beliefs are just as valid as those of Grandma Fatima in Dearborn.

Dr. Mohammad el-Nawawy of Georgia State University stated on a radio program that (I'll paraphrase) Muslims believe that any photo or depiction of ANY prophet, including Jesus and Moses are blasphemous.

Shouldn't someone ask him if that includes drawings of Jesus in a Catholic church, and what he thinks should be done with such drawings (the idiot talk show host missed the whole point and therefore didn't ask)?

And shouldn't he be queried about those Muslims for whom he doesn't speak? Like those Muslims who do draw Muhammad. And how about those Muslims who believe that ALL drawings of ALL animate object are prohibited?

Shouldn't CNN, out of respect for those Muslims who believe that a drawing of my cat insults their sensibilities, be confined to radio only?

Posted by: PRCS at February 20, 2006 12:05 AM

PRCS-

A group of Saudi "clerics" tried to prevent television from entering Saudi Arabia decades ago, using the ban on images of animate creatures as their guide.

The cynical Saudi leadership, knowing how important a tool t.v. would be for brainwashing the Umma, over-ruled the extremely iconoclastic mullahs.

I wish they had succeeded.

Then the internet would have been forbidden to Muslims, also.

With 7th century minds, any more progressive tools just turn into stone axes in their mitts.

A pity to waste all this technology and knowledge on them.

Like handing a Stradivarius to a termite.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 20, 2006 3:07 AM

I made the mistake of not going to the original article...thanks for that, Infidel Pride.

If the Phoenix had just printed the "we are being terrorized" statements, that would have been fine. But the remainder of their points are ridiculous and change the overall message of the article considerably. It's overall message: "Honestly, we're scared, and we're going to respond to that fear by behaving like cowardly fools." The article is an attempt to please everyone; it is a tangle of confusion and mixed messages. The author(s) have not thought through the issue carefully and have done practically no research on it. (PRCS, again, you raise a good point. Why do MSM journalists seem to be so averse to doing research on the theological basis for the image taboo?).

Their statement about having a responsibility to their employees doesn't work, because they are in effect saying to the would-be terrorists "Go bomb those other folks who published the cartoons." This is irresponsible, not responsible. All news outlets covering the story should have shown at least some of the cartoons, including the most controversial one. That would have been the safest scenario for everyone.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 20, 2006 5:58 AM

Arch,

"Why do MSM journalists seem to be so averse to doing research on the theological basis for the image taboo?"

They're afraid they'll have to report the facts.

Posted by: PRCS at February 20, 2006 11:29 AM

In the same spirit as the newspaper, perhaps some politician could start a campaign to have the first amendment amended so it cannot be used to offend Islam. Perhaps with the wording to include not making reference to Mohammed's paedophilia (it is no longer relevant) and the, oh so unjust, criticism of the massacre at Medina where hundreds were slaughtered in cold blood (the historical context needs to be understood you see).

Let's see how that goes down with the public.

Posted by: Celsius at February 20, 2006 4:43 PM

I appreciate this editor being forthright and honest about his motivations -- but Holy God -- if this isn't the case for fighting to protect free speech -- I don't know what is... The failure by our American and British media to publish these "cartoons" is an abomination against free speech, and freedom of the press.

Posted by: jsla at February 20, 2006 9:22 PM

The British publication "The Spectator" and other press entities in the UK quoted the same reason for not publishing the cartoons. So how did the "religion of peace" react to the decision not to publish in the UK in their recent demos? By appearing on the streets of London dressed as suicide bombers and threatening another 7/7. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Posted by: londongirl at February 21, 2006 10:22 AM