Another reason why the NYT is a disgrace

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
INDY500 said:


Holy shit...literally. Now I've heard it all.

Nudity has been used in art since, well, forever as well, but that hardly means that surrounding an image of the Madonna with phonographic cut-outs of vaginas and buttocks wouldn't be perceived by many Christians as a offensive.

But this isn't about "art" hanging in a gallery. It's about a picture of it being published in a newspaper that just 24 hours earlier declared it's editorial policy was to "refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."

However, next time I visit Paris and the Musée du Louvre I'll be sure and check out their, no doubt, immense exhibit of Elephant Dung Art. Guess I missed it last time.

Oh, now you go look up what you should have been offended by...

Funny you didn't mention that before. Um, Mary has been painted nude before. What is pornographic about a vagina exactly? Isn't that how Jesus was delivered?

But you are right this isn't about art hanging in the gallery, it's the fact that you wouldn't have been offended by the newsprint picture of it, until you went and did some research as to why you were offended by it. Kinda funny isn't it that you have to look up why you are offended, while the cartoons offended and were designed to offend from first glance.

And yes the Louve actually does have art using Elephant dung, Elk dung, human and animal blood. So you did miss it.:|
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Oh, now you go look up what you should have been offended by...

Funny you didn't mention that before.


Actually I did. Read my first post, it says:
THE NEXT DAY -- ran a picture of Chris Ofili's Holy Virgin Mary, a "work of art" that shows the Virgin Mary surrounded by pornographic images and clumps of elephant dung.
Why would I have to be told that was offensive?

But you are right this isn't about art hanging in the gallery, it's the fact that you wouldn't have been offended by the newsprint picture of it, until you went and did some research as to why you were offended by it. Kinda funny isn't it that you have to look up why you are offended, while the cartoons offended and were designed to offend from first glance.

And how would a reader of the New York Times know if the cartoons were offensive? Because they were told so? If they can publish an offensive picture in the context of a story about art, why not in another seemingly more important story about rioting and freedom of the press?

And yes the Louve actually does have art using Elephant dung, Elk dung, human and animal blood. So you did miss it.:|

I didn't go in the basement.
 
i suppose it's true that the NYT is held to a far, far, far higher standard than the various right-wing outfits conservatives like to wish the NYT is, but only on the left. if we were to take the exacting standards INDY seems to be demanding of the NYT and apply them to FoxNews, or even the (rightly) esteemed WSJ, just what would happen?

hence, the best newspaper on earth. perfect? hardly. nuanced, intelligent, comprehensive? absolutely.
 
Irvine511 said:
i suppose it's true that the NYT is held to a far, far, far higher standard than the various right-wing outfits conservatives like to wish the NYT is, but only on the left. if we were to take the exacting standards INDY seems to be demanding of the NYT and apply them to FoxNews, or even the (rightly) esteemed WSJ, just what would happen?

What would happen? Well if you're a Democratic candidate for president of the United States, better to cancel a debate on FoxNews than face a bunch of journalistic lowbrows like Brit Hume or Chris Wallace. Right?
hence, the best newspaper on earth. perfect? hardly. nuanced, intelligent, comprehensive? absolutely.

And, if you're a jidhidist, sometimes downright indispensable.
 
INDY500 said:


Actually I did. Read my first post, it says:
THE NEXT DAY -- ran a picture of Chris Ofili's Holy Virgin Mary, a "work of art" that shows the Virgin Mary surrounded by pornographic images and clumps of elephant dung.
Why would I have to be told that was offensive?

I didn't realize a vagina is a pornographic image.

But none of this you could have seen from the image in a newspaper.


INDY500 said:

And how would a reader of the New York Times know if the cartoons were offensive? Because they were told so? If they can publish an offensive picture in the context of a story about art, why not in another seemingly more important story about rioting and freedom of the press?

Are you assuming there aren't Muslims who read the New York Times? If they were printed they would have known they were offensive. What kind of question is that?

One is designed to be offensive in newsprint and another is something you wouldn't know was offensive unless you went to the exhibit back in 99, even then it's left up to interpretation.

The context is not the same, and you're fooling yourself to think so.


INDY500 said:

I didn't go in the basement.

:|

I'm just guessing you never took an art class in your life.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I didn't realize a vagina is a pornographic image.


Then why don't you post a picture of one (and not Britney's, we've all seen that one), and let's see if the mods agree with you.

Are you assuming there aren't Muslims who read the New York Times? If they were printed they would have known they were offensive. What kind of question is that?

Proving my point. Who say's Muslims have a right not to be offended? You or I don't have that right. Christians don't have that right. Just Muslim readers of the New York Times I guess.

I'm going to give Muslims in this country much more credit than that. I think they would have seen a political cartoon for what it was -- a political cartoon -- someone's opinion expressed in a free society. The worst one showing Mohammed with his turban morphing into a bomb if I remember right.
Pretty lame by political cartoon standards.
 
INDY500 said:

Then why don't you post a picture of one (and not Britney's, we've all seen that one), and let's see if the mods agree with you.
There's a difference between pornographic, and what some may consider indescent exposure. I could post a picture from a scientific journal, I could post a photograph, but you are not guaranteed 100% free speech in here. Besides, if I did wouldn't you be considered trolling since you provoked me?



INDY500 said:

Proving my point. Who say's Muslims have a right not to be offended? You or I don't have that right. Christians don't have that right. Just Muslim readers of the New York Times I guess.

I'm going to give Muslims in this country much more credit than that. I think they would have seen a political cartoon for what it was -- a political cartoon -- someone's opinion expressed in a free society. The worst one showing Mohammed with his turban morphing into a bomb if I remember right.
Pretty lame by political cartoon standards.

Well this is a completely different argument, and it wasn't just the turban into a bomb. There are very strict rules as to how Mohammed can be portrayed.

But this isn't the point. The point you made was the NYT is disgraceful for printing one and not the other.

One doesn't go against strict rules of the government, it may be bad taste according to you but it doesn't fall into the strict guidelines of being blasphemy, and the other does.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Well this is a completely different argument, and it wasn't just the turban into a bomb. There are very strict rules as to how Mohammed can be portrayed.


Who's strict rules? Islam, since when are non-Muslims bound by Islamic strictures? Can Catholics who don't eat meat on Friday demand that all Burger Kings and Outback Steak Houses be closed on Friday? Don't think so.
I'm not comfortable with any art that goes out of it's way to offend any religion. But the big stink over these cartoons was not so much over their offensiveness, but rather the fact that they dared to criticize (by a crude stereotype to be sure but not without some truth) the Muslim religion. Something, you may not have noticed as a Times reader, that is not tolerated very well by some pre-Enlightenment Islamic societies.

But this isn't the point. The point you made was the NYT is disgraceful for printing one and not the other.

Disgraceful in it's cowardice.
 
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase it's no big deal, get over it.



and, for some, neither is Abu Ghraib.

but Our Blessed Mother of Camel Dung? now that shit matters.







and, please, tell me, the dogs. why? am utterly preplexed. i can't tell who's who in WTAHNN anymore.
 
INDY500 said:


Hell, I didn't even bring up Jayson Blair cause that's just too easy.



and what did the NYT fail to do when it underwent it's week-long self-flaggelation/purging afterwards and the subsequent departure of editor Howard Raines?

if only the Bush administration would ever show such rectitude when it's caught with it's pants down.
 
Duelling conspiracies, sweet...I can actually picture the right wing conspiracy folks voting Dem, because they want their conspiracy back. Good times.
 
Back
Top Bottom