The Editor of Jyllands-Posten Speaks Out

This man is far more thoughtful than he has been portrayed, and the debate in Denmark has also been far more robust -- and far more helpful to the Muslim community there, according to him -- than we have perhaps been led to believe.

This is the first time I've seen, in the American press, more than just the "bomb in the turban" cartoon described. No hint yet that American newspapers are interested in clueing their readers in here, although the violence is getting worse, not better.

Update: I take that back. One paper was very interested. (Via Memeorandum) and their editor's comments about the experience, and regarding his colleagues, should be read not just by us but by all those editors deciding to solicitously keep their readers in the dark.

Update: Now, I don't think there's the slightest doubt that the White House mishandled the whole the-Vice-President-just-shot-a-guy deal, but I also don't think there's the slightest doubt that the press has made this all about themselves. The lead story on several nights hasn't been -- hey, the veep shot a guy -- it's been -- hey, the veep shot a guy, and we weren't told quickly enough. Which is certainly newsworthy, but lead story newsworthy in the face of a war in Iraq and the possibility of nukes in Iran? One wonders.

And one who wonders, particularly contrasting the press's interest in informing us of every last detail on the shooting, and their lack of interest in informing us of the critical details on the cartoons, in his typical trenchant style, is Mark Steyn.

Comments

[Ron Hardin]

``At the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, U.S. Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes said U.S. newspapers generally did not reprint the caricatures "because they recognize they are deeply offensive, even blasphemous to the precious convictions of our Muslim friends and neighbors."''

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR2006021900120_2.html

I'm curious about ``precious.'' She's getting a subversive performance out of the word.

[skip]

Flemming Rose wrote a whole piece in the WPOST about why he ran the cartoon contest, without mentioning his association with Campus Watch's Daniel Pipes. Do we not find it passing strange that a self-declared champion of free speech has written an article praising a man whose organization exists to silence Israel's critics on US campuses?

The cartoon contest was always primarily intended to humiliate Islam and stir up hatred. The Pope said as much when he deplored their publication. The sole beneficiaries of this "clash of civilizations" are al Qaeda loonies and nutbag Jewish settlers in the territories. We are the losers.

Finally, is this not a strange way to sell free speech? Wow! Join us and you too can gravely offend other cultures under the rubrik of "freedom." Even child porn would be better.

It is rare day when I agree with the Pope but this is one of them.

[dauber]

I didn't know he had a relationship with Pipes, but I can't imagine why it's relevant here -- and I think you badly mischaracterize Pipes, who hardly is seeking to "silence" anyone. You are welcome to your opinion, but you are simply making assertions with nothing to back them up -- and I mean nothing whatsoever. (And how in the world do Jewish settlers have anything to do with this?) You are oversimplying in order to dismiss. The idea that these cartoons "humiliate" an entire civiliation so deeply that child porn would be better is an idea that can only come from someone who hasn't seen the cartoons.