Our Heroic Media

[Locutus]

All you need to know about the New York Times

in one sentence...from your moral and intellectually superior, socially squeamish, progtard terrorist apologists (I may have left out a descriptor or two, sorry)...this is what they want people to believe..."it's not the terrorism, it's the reaction".

The strike "is sure to accelerate the growth of anti-Islamic sentiment in Europe"

can't bring myself to c&p any more of their sh!t but here it is if it grabs your thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/w...prod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share




let's add that scumbag rag huffpo to the mix:
Brandon Morse ‏@TheBrandonMorse

HuffPo won’t say Islam in this article. Cowards. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-suspects_n_6433060.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067 …

 

[tay]

Re: All you need to know about the New York Times

not today

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Fox News has ‘no plans’ to air Charlie Hebdo cartoons

By Erik WempleJanuary 7
In its breaking news coverage of the Paris killings at Charlie Hebdo magazine, “Fox & Friends,” the morning show of Fox News, showed a shot of one of the magazine’s controversial cartoons. Yet the network, according to a spokeswoman, has “no plans” to show further examples. Fox News’s decision falls in line with those of other cable news outlets. As reported earlier here and here, CNN has cropped out the provocative drawings from its coverage of the killings. And in an extensive rundown of the news media’s approach to the matter, Rosie Gray and Ellie Hall of BuzzFeed note this policy at the NBC family: “Our NBC News Group Standards team has sent guidance to NBC News, MSNBC, and CNBC not to show headlines or cartoons that could be viewed as insensitive or offensive.”
Here’s what’s actually “insensitive”: To attempt an explanation of what may have prompted these killings without showing what may have prompted these killings.

Fox News has ‘no plans’ to air Charlie Hebdo cartoons - The Washington Post

Interesting. Coupla things. First, our media are cowards (big surprise).
Second, interesting that Wemple reports that CNN and the NBC group are also not showing the cartoons, but his headline only addresses Fox's failure. I wonder what his political orientation is?

 

[Locutus]

Re: All you need to know about the New York Times

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog

Shot:
https://twitter.com/mitchellreports/status/552994553033019392 …
Chaser:
https://twitter.com/RosieGray/status/552945793075003392 …




John Groves ‏@jfgroves

The next time any journalist haughtily claims that they self-censor out of "respect", show them this. #JeSuisCharlie

Neil Macdonald: Religion, Satire and where we draw the line - YouTube

Ezra LevantVerified account ‏@ezralevant

Shorter Neil Macdonald: I work for a company of cowards, in an industry of cowards



*threads merged because pony boy had a more appropriate title





Little Dhimmis at Ceeb Toronto Headquarters Refuse to Blaspheme By Showing #CharleiHebdo Cartoons

Little Dhimmis at Ceeb Toronto Headquarters Refuse to Blaspheme By Showing #CharleiHebdo Cartoons | Blazing Cat Fur

John Groves ‏@jfgroves

The Main Stream Media: All the news that won't get our offices bombed if we print. #JeSuisCharlie #CharlieHebdo

 

[Colpy]

My respect for Neil Macdonald just lept up several hundred notches. He is usually such an idiot lefty anti-gun, Israel-hating, anti-American typical CBC shill that this left me in shock.

He even shows Mohammed cartoons.

 

[damngrumpy]

Some would have you believe the people at the paper are to blame for this.
Nonsense, its the same as saying the way a woman dresses is to blame for
an assault. Or she was out late at night on her own. These rationalizations
are the reason we have seen this problem grow.
Why if we give these folks their own rules within the context of the state we
would see less violence. I love that one I have heard it before. The fact of
the matter is we have laws and conditions for being a citizen they are the
laws that are binding on us, Yes freedom comes with responsibilities and we
are all subject to them. For some reason religion is beyond that they are now
exceptions to the rule. Why? The law should apply to all the same and no
spacial treatment.
The other thing we should be doing is monitoring social media as the terrorists
are there operating and recruiting and we should have counter messages as
well.

 

[Angstrom]

The other thing we should be doing is monitoring social media as the terrorists
are there operating and recruiting and we should have counter messages as
well.

We already are.

 

[Locutus]

7 Offensive Images The New York Times Wasn’t Afraid to Publish



1. The Times printed this anti-Semitic cartoon in 2010:

2. This racist Dr. Seuss drawing in 2011:

3. This anti-Semitic caricature in 2005:

4. This photograph of a racist “Golliwog” doll in 2009:

5. This racist children’s book in 2009:

6. This racist children’s cartoon in 2009:

7. This photo of a Westboro Baptist Church member holding a sign which reads: “THE JEWS KILLED JESUS” in 2009:

There are, of course, many articles where the Times declined to reproduce an offensive image alongside an article addressing that image. For instance it did not print a cartoon, which originally appeared in Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times, depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu using the blood of Palestinians as mortar for a brick wall. (That particular article, concerning Murdoch’s apology for the cartoon’s publication, did however link to a tweet containing the cartoon.)

A review of Times articles about the Westboro Baptist Church, furthermore, suggests the paper is unwilling to use any photos that contain one of the group’s most famous slogans: “GOD HATES FAGS.” (The paper is willing to use photos where the phrase “THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS” appears.)


7 Offensive ImagesÂ*The New York TimesÂ*Wasn’t Afraid to Publish


you will read what the editorial board or owners say you will read.

no reality, no funny business and no lampooning.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=4cha...a=X&ei=jA2vVJTfKceeyATG-4GgBQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

 

[Zipperfish]

Re: All you need to know about the New York Times

in

HuffPo won’t say Islam in this article. Cowards. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-suspects_n_6433060.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067 …

Actually, HuffPo reprinted the cartoons.

 

[Locutus]

Re: All you need to know about the New York Times

Actually, HuffPo reprinted the cartoons.

actually, I never said they didn't.



fun fact: not only DIDN'T they mention Islam, they only used "muslim" once in 350 words.

 

[Zipperfish]

Re: All you need to know about the New York Times

actually, I never said they didn't.



fun fact: not only DIDN'T they mention Islam, they only used "muslim" once in 350 words.

I wish more newspapers/newssites had reprinted the cartoons. Craven. They had a chance make Je suis Charlie actualy mean something and they chickened out. No shrtage of journalists patting each other on the back though.

 

[Locutus]

Sheila Gunn Reid ‏@SheilaGunnReid

Don't publish images of the Prophet, lest CBC offend Muslims, @DavidStuder? So, I found Piss Christ up at CBC. weird

weird or what.





and then, for what it's worth:

The CBC is now scrubbing the comments about the Paris massacre on the few articles that they actually allowed comments.

Most of the top comments on this story have been sent down the rabbit hole. Unfortunately,I don't have screenshots.

Jihadists 'declared war' on those who disagree, Stephen Harper says - Politics - CBC News

But it got me thinking. I have heard Evan Solomon asking his viewers to comment on cbc.ca as they are a comment driven news source.

What if the comments at cbc are being moderated by a company owned by muslims?

Would that not allow the tail to wag the dog?

Would the cbc care?

The comments at cbc.ca are moderated by Viafoura, a company that is owned by two "diverse" gentlemen.

Nothing to see here folks,move along.

Reader Tips - Small Dead Animals


yeah...here ya go

Jesse Moeinifar - Founder & CEO

Ali Ghafour - Founder & VP Client Success



About Us - Viafoura

 

[damngrumpy]

English CBC Television is a disgrace they refused to print the one thing
at the heart of the news. A cartoon that some people without morals
thought they should be allowed to murder people over. When it comes to
the word civilized and Islam they are incompatible. If you read the book it
is alright to murder infidels and if ya ain't one of them yer nothing.
Its time we got that through our heads and demonstrated we have a back
bone. The media is gutless. I believe we have to ring their phones off the
wall until they hear the people want the news and they are not delivering it.
Well we should have done that long time ago. See the media dumbed it all
down turning information programs into news and entertainment. In fact I
see news becoming more like infomercials for travel promotions in the future.
Look at CNN they have gone to programing about food places around the world
and check medium and smaller communities they don't have local newsmen
anymore. Soon terrorists could strike and we wouldn't know until Monday.
The Media needs to put this up front so the people know what they are up against
and there are dangers the governments have allowed in our midst.

 

[BaalsTears]

Whatever happened to Molly Norris?

 

[waldo]

Re: All you need to know about the New York Times

in one sentence...from your moral and intellectually superior, socially squeamish, progtard terrorist apologists (I may have left out a descriptor or two, sorry)...this is what they want people to believe..."it's not the terrorism, it's the reaction".

Locutus... you talking about the Supreme Court of Canada? Why does Canada have hate speech laws... isn't that an affront to free speech? Oh my, isn't that censorship? Are hate speech laws the same in all countries? When does one man's idea of "politically incorrect satire" become another man's idea of "hate speech, of discrimination, of racism, of purposeful intent to inflame, etc."? Just as one example... what is the point of printing a "satirical cartoon" where a "religious figurehead" is depicted nude in a homosexual embrace? You print it why?..... because..... in the name of 'free speech"... you can? To what end... what end?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Re: All you need to know about the New York Times

Locutus... you talking about the Supreme Court of Canada? Why does Canada have hate speech laws... isn't that an affront to free speech?

Yup.

Oh my, isn't that censorship?

Yup.

Are hate speech laws the same in all countries?

They're the same in the sense that they are ultimately doomed fascist attempts at thought control which lead inevitably to criminalising criticism of the government.

When does one man's idea of "politically incorrect satire" become another man's idea of "hate speech, of discrimination, of racism, of purposeful intent to inflame, etc."?

About three nanoseconds after you pass a speech suppression law.

Just as one example... what is the point of printing a "satirical cartoon" where a "religious figurehead" is depicted nude in a homosexual embrace? You print it why?..... because..... in the name of 'free speech"... you can? To what end... what end?

Because I choose to. That is the end. Free folk do not have to justify their actions unless those actions do proximate, tangible harm to others.

 

[Locutus]

James WoodsVerified account ‏@RealJamesWoods

CNN actually described the Paris jihadist murderers as "activists." So the police who finally killed these scum would be..."reactionaries?"


fukkin' Carlin would be on a tear seeing through this soft-language progtard smoothing-out of things. come back Georger, please.

 

[Nuggler]

My respect for Neil Macdonald just lept up several hundred notches. He is usually such an idiot lefty anti-gun, Israel-hating, anti-American typical CBC shill that this left me in shock.

He even shows Mohammed cartoons.

Some lefties might surprise ya.

 

[Colpy]

Re: All you need to know about the New York Times

Locutus... you talking about the Supreme Court of Canada? Why does Canada have hate speech laws... isn't that an affront to free speech? Oh my, isn't that censorship? Are hate speech laws the same in all countries? When does one man's idea of "politically incorrect satire" become another man's idea of "hate speech, of discrimination, of racism, of purposeful intent to inflame, etc."? Just as one example... what is the point of printing a "satirical cartoon" where a "religious figurehead" is depicted nude in a homosexual embrace? You print it why?..... because..... in the name of 'free speech"... you can? To what end... what end?

Canada has Hate Speech laws because our idiot politicians and the morons on the Supreme Court do not understand the first thing about individual rights, and we are saddled with a Charter that does not guarantee rights, but enshrines methods for the state to deny our rights.

Obviously, you do not understand the basics either.

Yup.


Yup.


They're the same in the sense that they are ultimately doomed fascist attempts at thought control which lead inevitably to criminalising criticism of the government.


About three nanoseconds after you pass a speech suppression law.


Because I choose to. That is the end. Free folk do not have to justify their actions unless those actions do proximate, tangible harm to others.

You get it.

Waldo does not.

 

[taxslave]

Re: All you need to know about the New York Times

Canada has Hate Speech laws because our idiot politicians and the morons on the Supreme Court do not understand the first thing about individual rights, and we are saddled with a Charter that does not guarantee rights, but enshrines methods for the state to deny our rights.

Obviously, you do not understand the basics either.



You get it.

Waldo does not.

Just one more of a long list of things waldo doesn't get.