When the Charlie Hebdo massacre took place a year ago yesterday, it was of course widely reported. But one bit of reportorial information was missing: the cartoons that brought on that attack. It was hard to find images of any earlier cartoons of Muhammad or even of the touching first cover that appeared after the slaughter—this one:
Of course they had an excuse: “we didn’t want to offend people”, but the real reason was cowardice. The magazines didn’t want the worry of attacks by Muslim terrorists. But those covers were news, so how could you report on the murders without showing what incited them? That reminds me of the reprehensible publication of an entire book by Yale University Press on the Danish Jyllands-Posten cartoons without showing a single one of them.
The Daily Caller gives a list (with evidence) of cowardly venues that refused, and still refuse, to publish any Charlie Hebdo…
View original post 544 more words