Blatant New York Times cartoon hypocrisy

The New York Times runs an editorial today objecting to newspapers publishing the cartoons that caricatured Mohammed. The Times feels that the cartoons were needlessly insensitive and pats itself on the back for refraining from running them.

Given the self—righteous moral preening of today's editoral, it is strange that the Times did not have a problem accepting money from an anti—Israel group, running this anti—Semitic cartoon (scroll down to the bottom of the page) regarding Israel supporters in  America.

The cartoon acceptable to the Times depicts a hairy gorilla holding an Israeli flag while sitting atop the US Capitol. 

Double standards at work? Apparently, the Times will not run a caricature to inform its readers about the nature of the issue inflaming Muslims, but will gladly take money to run a cartoon that is laden with anti—Semitic motifs and imagery. Protect Muslim sensitivities, but propagate anti—Semitism.

The New York Times has a lot of questions to answer about its editorial "standards."

Ed Lasky   2 07 06

The New York Times runs an editorial today objecting to newspapers publishing the cartoons that caricatured Mohammed. The Times feels that the cartoons were needlessly insensitive and pats itself on the back for refraining from running them.

Given the self—righteous moral preening of today's editoral, it is strange that the Times did not have a problem accepting money from an anti—Israel group, running this anti—Semitic cartoon (scroll down to the bottom of the page) regarding Israel supporters in  America.

The cartoon acceptable to the Times depicts a hairy gorilla holding an Israeli flag while sitting atop the US Capitol. 

Double standards at work? Apparently, the Times will not run a caricature to inform its readers about the nature of the issue inflaming Muslims, but will gladly take money to run a cartoon that is laden with anti—Semitic motifs and imagery. Protect Muslim sensitivities, but propagate anti—Semitism.

The New York Times has a lot of questions to answer about its editorial "standards."

Ed Lasky   2 07 06