So, in a blinding feat of profound wussiness, the Washington Post removed the October 3rd "Non Sequitur" cartoon from its rag. The reason? It mentioned Muhammad. Let me repeat: it was yanked because it "mentioned" – not showed – Muhammad.
There wasn`t a picture of him in the strip.
But the Post, and some other papers, still pulled it.
Admirably, Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander asked his Style editor why- and he said, "it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." He added that "the point of the joke was not immediately clear."
Yeah. That`s why you did it: ambiguity. Weasel.
And here we see another float in the parade of pussies – a callow editor making a cowardly decision based on a fear of upsetting religious fanatics (a fear he cannot even admit to coworkers).
Which leads me to my only point. Why is it that the media keeps reminding us that we shouldn`t exaggerate the threat of a small group of radicals – but completely changes tact, when it comes to their own personal safety?
Think about it: if the average Joe expresses fear or anxiety over Islamic fundamentalism, they are called Islamophobes. But if an editor with balls the size of electrons removes a comic in which Muhammad isn`t even present – that`s not honest-to-Allah Islamophobia?
No, that`s just being sensitive.
Look, the media can`t have it both ways. They cannot criticize the public for concerns over Islam, and then eradicate anything in their midst that they perceive might elevate their risk for getting stabbed buying a chai latte at Starbucks. If their governing principle in the newsroom is fear, then they should admit it – and get the hell off our backs for feeling the same way.