J$P Instant Transcript! Joe Strupp and Jim Pinkerton on the Times coverage of the Mohammed cartoons.

From The O'Reilly Factor, February 8 2006:

BILL O'REILLY [FOX NEWS]: In the Unresolved Problem segment tonight, is there a double standard in the liberal press when it comes to religion? Earlier this week the New York Times said it would not run the Danish anti-Muslim cartoons:

That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols.

Well, that's fine. That's how I feel. But in 1999, when the Brooklyn museum displayed a portrait of Mary, the mother of Jesus, surrounded by pornographic images and covered with dung, the Times declared:

Cultural experimental and transgression are not threats to civility, but part of the texture and meaning of daily life.

How pedantic. And when a play called Corpus Christi opened, featuring a gay Jesus and apostles, the Times criticized protesters for "bigotry, violence, and contempt for artistic expression". With us now, Joe Strupp, senior editor at Editor and Publisher magazine, and from Washington, Fox News analyst Jim Pinkerton. Hypocrisy here, Jim?

JIM PINKERTON [NEWSDAY]: Well, here are the rules, Bill. Here's how the Times operates. When it's Christians peacefully protesting obnoxious art, the Times bashes the Christians. If you go back and look at the editorials, they called them yahoos, they called them totalitarians. But when it's Muslims violently protesting obnoxious art, the Times pooh-poohs the Muslims, and bashes the artist. In this case, the Danes. In the Times editorial on Tuesday, the Times called the Danish artist juvenile, and just dismissed him. And then it says and the Muslims of course have kind of an argument, because the Times was eager to print pictures of Piss Christ. I'll get in trouble with my mother for saying that while I'm on the air.

O'REILLY: Let me explain that. It's the crucifix with Jesus on it dipped in urine, another crazy art exposition. But what's the--

PINKERTON: And Bill, Bill, financed by the US government.

O'REILLY: OK. NEA grant to do that kind of garbage. What's the why behind this?

PINKERTON: Well, I believe that the Times basically has it in for the American middle class. And that anything that makes fun and mocks the values of the American middle-class, the Times, from its purview on the west side of Manhattan, thinks that's great. They just love seeing it happen, so they cheer it on even when it costs freedom of speech, like in the case of Denmark.

O'REILLY: All right. How do you see it, Joe?

JOE STRUPP [EDITOR & PUBLISHER]: Well I think one thing you've got to remember here is the Times isn't the only paper not running these. Most of the papers in the US are not running them. Which I have criticized, and I think a lot of people can take umbrage at that. For a news organization covering this story, not running these images. A few have run them: Philadelphia Inquirer, Austin American Statesman. So that's the key element here I think. The other thing is, you've got to remember, and this may not play as much a role in it as you might think, but there were different editors in those years, running the editorial page, running the news pages.

O'REILLY: Yeah but that argument doesn't hold. It doesn't and I'm going to tell you why.

STRUPP: I don't know if that really makes a difference. Perhaps they would have done the same, they might have done the same decision regardless.

O'REILLY: No, no, no, no, here's why. Today, guess what the New York Times ran in their Arts section, on page E-8? They ran the dung Mary. They ran it again today! This picture ran in the New York Times today. But they won't run the Muslim. And Joe, do you think they're going to run Mohammed covered with dung? Do you?

STRUPP: Well you've got to see, one of the reasons is obviously like everyone else that's not right, they're afraid of--

O'REILLY: They're afraid!

STRUPP: Right. But I can--

O'REILLY: Absolutely.

STRUPP: You've got to look at how many people are going to be rioting in the streets over these other images.

O'REILLY: But they're hypocrites. If you're afraid, write an editorial, say we're afraid to run the cartoon. They're right.

STRUPP: When we talked to editors at other papers, they admitted they didn't want to offend. They were afraid to run them--

O'REILLY: Absolutely--

STRUPP: --and be clear on that. But I've got to point out that they're not the only paper doing it. Again, I am criticizing most papers. And I always say papers have a right to run what they want, and run what they don't want--

O'REILLY: But you're looking at it from a--

STRUPP: But you have to answer the question as to why you're not running a photo involving a story. The story here is these images, and you're not running the images, that is to be brought to task.

O'REILLY: But you're looking at it from a journalistic point of view--

STRUPP: Which is what we do.

O'REILLY: --I'm looking at it from a sociological point of view.

STRUPP: I understand.

O'REILLY: And I think Jim is coming right down that turnpike as well. Is that, there is no question in my mind that the New York Times is anti-Christian. I don't think it's a middle class thing. I think it's a secular progressive thing, Jim. Those who oppose the New York Times agenda--gay marriage, euthanasia, unfettered abortion--all are in the Christian community or the Jewish community. And they want to diminish that community.

PINKERTON: I think that's right. And I think that explains why, if you look at these editorials, they've been so relentless in praising this middle class bashing, Christian bashing, religion bashing, whatever you want to call it. They can't get enough of it. And the fact that they're printing it now as you point out, even as they specifically censor themselves on the Mohammed stuff, shows--

O'REILLY: Right. No Mohammed. Mary covered with dung, fine. Mohammed, no. Gentlemen, thanks very much.