The Quit and the Dead: Careful of the Incentives You Create

[roo_ster]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293451/quit-and-dead-mark-steyn

Pamela Geller was struck by that ad The New York Times ran the other day, “It’s Time To Quit The Catholic Church“, an “open letter to ‘liberal’ and ‘nominal’ Catholics”. So she sent in her own ad, “It’s Time To Quit Islam“, an “open letter to ‘moderate’ Muslims”. Analogous artwork, same pitch, only difference being the intended target. The Times’ Senior Vice-President for Corporate Hogwash called to tell Miss Geller that – surprise! surprise! – they were way less eager to rush this one into print:

Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.”

So I said to Mr. Christie, “Isn’t this the very point of the ad? If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?”

Thus the courage of the secular left: If you’re going to be “provocative”, it’s best to do it with people who can’t be provoked. Pamela is right. If you want to be treated with respect by The New York Times and the rest of the multiculti establishment, make it clear you’re willing to kill them. That’s an interesting message to send.

Incentives, incentives.

[Perd Hapley]

Sounds like Pam didn't read the reply very carefully.

The NYT was claiming that they wouldn't run the ad for fear of stirring up violence against our people in Afghanistan. Not that I believe them, of course, but that's what they were getting at.

The truth, most likely, is that the NYT is willing to believe that Catholicism is something best left for bigots and know-nothings. Islam, though, is exotic, neat-o, and still a viable option for celebrities struggling to seem less vapid.

[MicroBalrog]

It seems to me Pam read the reply she really, really, really wanted to read.

[HankB]

Sounds like Pam didn't read the reply very carefully.

It seems to me Pam read the reply she really, really, really wanted to read.

Really?

Korans being used by terrorists to pass messages are accidentally burned and all Hades breaks loose. Violence, riots, and murders result. Afghan leaders demand - and receive! - multiple groveling apologies from US officials, including POTUS.

Video and pictures of a cross burning come out of Afghanistan . . . but do Christians begin rioting and murdering people? Nope. Do US "leaders" demand - much less receive - an apology from Afghan officials? Nope.

I'm also reminded of the reaction to the Jyllands Posten publication of unflattering cartoons depicting Mohammed - it went somewhat beyond writing an irate letter to the editor, eh?

I think Pam largely got the right of it in interpreting the reply.

[makattak]

It seems to me Pam read the reply she really, really, really wanted to read.

No, she ignored the phony reply. When has the New York Times (in the past decade) ever considered the threat to U.S. soldiers before they published anything?

[Perd Hapley]

OK, Hank, but look at what Christie said and how Geller "interpreted" it.

Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.”

So I said to Mr. Christie, “Isn’t this the very point of the ad? If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?”

Christie's excuse is the situation in Afghanistan. Geller's talking about people attacking a building in Manhattan.

Honestly, I don't think the NY Times cares about protecting Americans in Afghanistan, but that is the excuse they're using. I don't think they expect Catholics or Muslims to commit violence against them in NY, either. More likely, they're afraid of being accused of racism, bigotry, etc.

[HankB]

. . .  I don't think they expect Catholics or Muslims to commit violence against them in NY, either.

Fistful, you're half right - NYT doesn't expect Catholics to commit violence against them in NY.

More likely, they're afraid of being accused of racism, bigotry, etc. 

A consideration that apparently wasn't even on their radar when they ran the "It’s Time To Quit The Catholic Church" ad . . .

[brimic]

More proof that the NYT is not a credible source of information, nor is it a cheap enough newspaper to use for wrapping fish entrails before disposal.

[Scout26]

I'd pay money to see rioting Catholics burn the NYT building to the ground.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I'd pay money to see rioting Catholics burn the NYT building to the ground.

how much?  and how many catholics are required to qualify as a riot?

[roo_ster]

how much?  and how many catholics are required to qualify as a riot?

At least this many:

[MicroBalrog]

I'm also reminded of the reaction to the Jyllands Posten publication of unflattering cartoons depicting Mohammed - it went somewhat beyond writing an irate letter to the editor, eh?

Just how many J-P journalists have gotten themselves killed over it?

Oh wait, none. The only people to die over it were the radical Muslims themselves, rioting over in Pakistan and shot by other Muslims.

Oh the 100,000-people who participated in Draw Muhammad Day - despite the fact Anwar al-Awlaki himself called for the initiators to be killed - just how many were killed?

Oh wait. None.  In fact, it is al-Awlaki who is himself very much dead.

There was also the individual who tried to kill some Swedish reporters after they drew a doodle-some image of the prophet. He burned down in their newspaper lobby, like a Roman candle, having botched his suicide bomber plan.

They are like emo Twilight fans - we mock their leader, and they start killing themselves.

[SADShooter]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree that incompetence obviates responsibility for intention. We're fortunate they're often inept, but it hasn't always been so.

[roo_ster]

Also, if they manage to get their hands on you, they tend to git er dun.  Ask Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg 'bout that.

[Perd Hapley]

More likely, they're afraid of being accused of racism, bigotry, etc.

A consideration that apparently wasn't even on their radar when they ran the "It’s Time To Quit The Catholic Church" ad . . .

Agreed.

I'd pay money to see rioting Catholics burn the NYT building to the ground.

I admit it, it would be hard not to laugh.

[MicroBalrog]

Also, if they manage to get their hands on you, they tend to git er dun.  Ask Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg 'bout that.

That is a fairly big IF.

[charby]

At least this many:

LMFAO

[gunsmith]

I seem to recall the NY Times being willing to put troops in harms way, a few yrs back - during the Bush admin they faced a lot of criticism for it.

Anyone remember that?

I had it bookmarked on my now fried old computer.

[Perd Hapley]

I seem to recall the NY Times being willing to put troops in harms way, a few yrs back - during the Bush admin they faced a lot of criticism for it.

Anyone remember that?

I had it bookmarked on my now fried old computer.

Are you thinking of Newsweek's allegation that a Koran was flushed?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1064416,00.html

[MicroBalrog]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree that incompetence obviates responsibility for intention. We're fortunate they're often inept, but it hasn't always been so.

It doesn't, but it does make them far less scary.