WARNING: Some images may be offensive.
Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin launched a social media attack Monday on editors of the tabloid Daily Mail for one aspect of their paper’s coverage of Sunday’s thwarted Islamist attack in Texas.
And she wasted precious few words in the process.
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) May 4, 2015
Presumably, the Daily Mail covered up the images in the Malkin tweet to avoid offending Muslims who believe pictures of the man who founded Islam — even favorable ones — are a form of sacrilege. It did the same with other pictures related to the event.
But that’s not getting a lot of support from social media users who agree with Malkin. (First of all, any news editor who gets offended at anything besides a drop in circulation — or web traffic — won’t be in the business long unless his dad’s his boss. And not even then.)
The United Kingdom, where the Daily Mail is based, has a large Muslim population, and many users accused the Mail of fearing exactly the kinds of attack that took place in Garland on Sunday and in Paris in January, when Islamist militants killed 11 people and wounded another 11 in the editorial offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
Besides, the Daily Mail — like much of the British media — is known for its irreverence, and it’s shown scant worries about offending other religions, notably Christianity, with its coverage of past issues. The DM’s website, for instance, had no qualms illustrating coverage of a Portugese edition of Playboy that showed Jesus as a flawed man engaged in various un-Messiah like pursuits.
And the Daily Mail didn’t seem to have a problem illustrating coverage of a controversial art exhibit in Brooklyn by showing an image that offended many Catholics — a crucified Jesus covered by ants.
So the idea that the Daily Mail is suddenly deeply worried about the religious sensibilities of its readers is a little hard to take. If the paper cared about offending people, showing Jesus lasciviously watching lesbians engaging in sex should be a deal more offensive than some pen and paper scrawl of Muhammad.
After all, even to Muslims, Muhammad was still a human, even if they think he was perfect.
Jesus, to Christians, is the actual human incarnation of God Himself.
So Malkin’s attack had plenty of supporters.
@michellemalkin That’s because the UK press are cowards…
— Harry Gato (@harrygato) May 4, 2015
— Michael Cope (@MikeEllisCope) May 4, 2015
— Mark Mark Mark (@RevJimJonesInc) May 4, 2015
— David Walsh, Jr. (@jeffersonianguy) May 4, 2015
Latest posts by Joe Saunders (see all)
- Pelosi goes off the deep end when asked if a baby is human; ‘might be the dumbest response in history’ - October 1, 2015
- GOP congressman, whose mom died of breast cancer, explodes: ‘I’m tired of getting lectures from Democrats!’ - October 1, 2015
- Undercover sting catches Hillary worker breaking law: Hispanic voter sign-up using ‘Trump’s ‘bi**hface’ - October 1, 2015