- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Let's see...Salon was so concerned with giving offense that it cravenly refused to publish the cartoons that have resulted in rioting by Muslims all over the world. This despite the fact that many leaders of the riots demanded government censorship of the cartoons. This despite Salon's presumed concern for the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Yet in the case of "new" photos from an old controversy, Salon is suddenly unconcerned with offending people and causing riots. Despite the fact that there's no new "news" -- as sane people define that term -- Salon breathlessly carries the photos and sanctimoniously intones that "Abu Ghraib cannot be allowed to fade away like some half-forgotten domestic political controversy..."
Uh, so remind us again why it is somehow wrong to publish the cartoons, but perfectly fine to publish inflammatory photos of an old controversy.
And I wonder if Salon would be so enthusiastic about publishing newly discovered photos of 9-11 victims leaping to their deaths? Somehow, I suspect that we'd be sanctimoniously reminded that this is "old news"...
