This Week's Cover

For John, BLUF:  Where to draw the line in news?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is the next cover for Charlie Hebdo.

The link is from this blog post at Althouse.  Plus this:

You'll have to look elsewhere for an image of that cover, of course.  The NYT has decided not to show cartoons depicting Muhammad:

I didn't post the cover because I don't have a copyright release.  The Old Gray Lady didn't publish it for fear of offending some of its readership.  From an interview with the New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet by the paper's "Public Editor" (Ombudsman), Margaret Sullivan:

“We have a standard that is long held and that serves us well: that there is a line between gratuitous insult and satire.  Most of these are gratuitous insult.”

“At what point does news value override our standards?”  Mr. Baquet asked.  “You would have to show the most incendiary images” from the newspaper; and that was something he deemed unacceptable.

It makes some sense in that their motto is "All the news that's fit to print".  If those cartoons are judged gratuitous, then they are not fit to print.  If they are not fit to print, are they fit to be talked about?  On the other hand, what happened to "All" the news?

From the comments at the Althouse Blog, "MayBee" says:

If the NYT would just be honest and say they are afraid of being killed, so they won't publish the cartoons, I could handle that.

And, one wonders what is not being reported out of nKorea, Iran, Cuba, etc, due to concerns about offending this or that person.

UPDATE:  Even Ms Amy Goodman, on Democracy Now, flashed up the cover on this morning's show.♠

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Then she raised the issue of no explanation as to why US Attorney General Eric Holder didn't attend the Sunday Rally in Paris.