MediaMedia BiasSarah PalinWashington Post

Political Cartoons and the Double Standard at the Washington Post


A summary display of the Mohammed cartoons that sparked riots last year throughout the Muslim world

The Washington Post would not publish the Mohammed cartoons which sparked controversy and riots last year yet will allow this Pat Oliphant cartoon mocking Sarah Palin and Pentecostal Christian religions to be run on their website.


Here is the HYPOCRITICAL explanation by the Washington Post, Ombudsman, Deborah Howell.

Most complainers thought that the Oliphant cartoon appeared in print. It didn’t. I showed it to several Post editors. While it was clever in some ways, most editors — including me — would not have run it. The Post has a policy against defaming or perpetuating racial, religious or ethnic stereotypes. That was why The Post did not run the Danish cartoons about the prophet Muhammad.

Is there any wonder why newspapers like the Washington Post are losing subscribers and are failing in the world marketplace of ideas? If the Post must have standards apply them equally.

But, we all know this will NEVER happen. The Washington Post’s standards are just an excuse for censorship to perpetuate their left-wing bias.

Technorati Tags: , ,

14 thoughts on “Political Cartoons and the Double Standard at the Washington Post

  1. no i do not think they should have printed them. it is insulting to muslims and is provoking the muslim world. the only benefit is to people like bin laden who most probably recruited another score of uneducated young muslims who know no better.
    islam is not about ‘jihad’ and only a minority [growing] believe in this radicalised version. in todays time when the west should be doing its best to not support the radical element we get silliness like this,which only give creditibility to the bin ladens, taliban,etc.
    how do you think the christian world would like it if the arabs started printed insulting pictures in their papers about jesus, moses,etc.
    its all about respect for others esp. religion because of the sensitive nature.
    it tells me one thing looking at both cartoons, both are radicalised versions of religion . personly i find the palin one funny and it has a point[do you want a radical running this country], but it should never have been published.

  2. i do believe in freedom of speech but i do wonder about you, now your screening my comments. don’t you think its irresposible that cartoons like this may get someone killed, and all for what. a paper like the wash post knows this and acted in a responsible way. if you were to do the same thing with jewish prophets you wouldn’t last the week.
    its just a pity people use freedom of speech in a insulting way. just like ahmadenjads denial that the holocost never happened. but human nature being as it is there is nothing we can do about it.

  3. let me put it another way. if i was to publish material in a widely read mag instructing people how to make bombs and to kill dentist [right wing of coarse], and then claim my freedom of speech rights, what would you say.

  4. I am moderating your comments because you have a tendency to spam this blog with multiple comments that often have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    Please read my terms of use.

    Political and religious criticism/satire has been around the world since man started to communicate. The Muslims have to be tolerant of criticism and other belief systems.

    They are not.

  5. @6

    Terrorist threats have never been “protected speech.” However, religious and/or political satire is.

    Please do some reading on the United States Constitution and our first amendment.

  6. i agree with you. what i’m talking about is standards for a credible mag. if the wash post started printing insulting pictures of jewish prophets, the american jews would organise and protest vigorously, some would threatened .and all these anti semetic groups would come into play with your politicans calling for a apology. and i bet no one including you would say the jews must be tolerant

  7. At first I wasn’t going to touch it with a ten foot pencil….but remember Satanic Verses? Rushdie was on the “run” for many years….that was WRITTEN text! I think cartoons prove there is power in images, no matter how bad they are. Take a look at the drawing styles of some of the most hated cartoons in the world? I also am wondering if any of America’s best or top notch (even most recognozable) editorial cartoonists are not on a hit list somewhere? This is such a bizarre topic but yet so interesting in the sense it deals with actual cartoons! And yet, no one has mentioned if these original Mohammed cartoons that so enraged the Muslim world have gone for sale up on Ebay! Where might we be able to find them? Can you imaging possessing one?

    Cartoon Image Licensing Agency

  8. FREEDOM OF SPEECH? so there is no limitation for speech and don’t care about reaction and maybe hurt other people?
    If it’s, it’s like we back again to prehistoric which without rules.

  9. wow….um…just so u know, the reason one was published and the other wasnt was because of fear or TERROR…instilled by the TERRORists…sumtimes it works guys…….and i know ur saying…haven’t extreme christians blown up abortion clinics? well yes, they have….so maybe this guy is right haha

  10. I assistance anything that makes it easier for users to obtain access to advanced internet site functionality. Twitter oauth is fairly easy to implement and if the user is logged into twitter it is really 1 or two click process. The user feels safe not giving as well much info properly internet site owner has a new potential customer. Incredibly good Posting!

Comments are closed.