Thursday, February 16, 2006

Speaking of beng "sensitive". . .

. . .which I am practically all the time, I'm having a little trouble sorting out The Times's sensitivity criteria. The other day we mentioned Tim Rutten's column in the said Times which discussed how ineffably sensitive the paper is about the Mahometans and their hurt feelings should The Times publish The Cartoons (which you can find here at a non-Times site to be sure -- scroll down about half way). The sensitive Times, keenly feeling their pain, decided not to print The Cartoons.

But just yesterday on the front page of the Calendar Section what do we find but a photograph from an "art" exhibit. The exhibit photographed showed an ornate crucifix surrounded by chicken legs stuck up in the air. They even put the photo on the web page; you can find it here. Perhaps The Times would like to explain. What are the criteria here? What validates one religion's feelings and invalidates others?

One is not entirely critical here. One applauds The Times in braving the wrath of the Ladies Altar and Rosary Society. The Times may have to stand up to an Evangelical picket or two carrying signs with hard words on them. Perhaps, just perhaps, Bill Donohue may even issue a press release or Dr Dobson have a word about it on the radio. But The Times knows no fear in upholding the rights of the press. Granted. But there is still that little question of criteria. Could we have an answer?