[BTW, you didn't see Catholics going out and blowing up buildings, burning cars, or even threatening the "artist" for what was certainly very offensive to them. And putting the cross in urine does seem alot worse than those cartoons of mohammed....]
Anyway the NYT was really hard on Helmes--downright nasty, considering he just died. Check out the article and caption under the picture. So, just for a lark, I decided to compare how the newspaper of record covered the death of a really bad man, Yassir Arafat in 2004 to how they covered death of Jesse Helmes today. Don't forget that Arafat was a terrorist in the truest sense: and was responsible for hundreds, if not thousands of Israeli civilian deaths. Take a look and get back to me. I can wait.
Well, as you can see, Arafat's death was covered as tho it was the death of a king, and Helmes' like he was just some..some bigoted dick not worth spit. Now, Helmes might have been a bigoted dick, but he was not a mass murderer [even teddy only killed one girl!]. How can this rag justify this kind of coverage? Just b/c Helmes was staunch conservative with whom they disagreed? They actually liked Ass-o-Fat more. They apparently liked him a lot. I read it the Arafat piece quickly, but I didn't see anything negative in there at all. With Helmes they spent several paragraphs deriding the guy, and then threw in a couple of things at the end about his being nice to teenagers or something. [I'm sure that was a last resort, after they dug to see if he'd been porking them too.]
Absolutely unreal. Terrorist and murder treated like a hero, conservative senator treated like a criminal. I'm never surprised anymore. It's like the Daily Show except without the comic genious. And the desk.
Oh, before I forget, the NYT has still not breathed a word about promotion of Sharia Law in England, the subject of my annoyingly long entry yesterday. What else did you expect?
No comments:
Post a Comment