• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Times gets tough: a new public editor!


DP Veteran
Oct 3, 2005
Reaction score
Political Leaning
If this weren't so indicative of the situation at what should be one of the world's greatest newspapers, this would be quite funny. As it is, it is quite an indictment, IMO:

The Times Gets Tough:
A New Public Editor!
Meet Ali bin-Zabar

By Bruce Feirstein

Dear Readers of The New York Times:

Recently, The Times— along with virtually every other American news organization—decided to show “sensitivity to Islam” by declining to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. At the time, some of you wondered: “What kind of slippery slope are we on here?”

With this column, I am prepared to provide the answer.

Allow me to introduce myself: I am Ali bin-Zabar, the new public editor of The New York Times.

Reporting to no one but the Prophet himself, my goal here is not to defend “All the News That Fits,” but to make sure The Times publishes only “All the News That’s Halal.”

In short, there’s a new imam in town. And with no further ado, let us proceed down the path to righteousness.

Dear Ali bin-Zabar:

All praise to Allah. Peace be upon him. My question is threefold: 1) Wasn’t it just a little hypocritical of The Times to illustrate the story of the Danish cartoons by using a portrait of the Madonna painted with elephant dung? 2) What happened to their so-called “journalistic integrity”—their vaunted “freedom of speech” and cherished “First Amendment rights”? 3) Would you agree they capitulated and (pardon the pun) “caved” into political correctness here? Akbar Z, Brooklyn

Dear Brother Akbar:

Indeed, you raise interesting issues. So allow me to preface my answer by quoting from The San Francisco Chronicle, whose editors declared “Islam is not a violent religion.”

On the one hand, you’re right: If The Times were really interested in not wanting to incite violence, they probably wouldn’t have published the torture photographs from Abu Ghraib prison. (Fortunately for us, they ran them.) Likewise the tank photographs from Tiananmen Square. (Fortunately for them, this kind of censorship is now being outsourced to Google. It’s the American way.)
Dear Brother bin-Zabar:

Salamu Alaikum. Peace be with you. What about the sports pages? Any changes in the offing? S.L., Jersey City, N.J.

Dear S.L.:

American football is grotesque; basketball, debauched. Hockey is dominated by gamblers. American baseball is drug-riddled, and the so-called “World Series” is imperialistic. The Koran teaches us that there shall be no false idols. Thus, no sports section. It is banished.

Thats just an excerpt of course. The rest is here.
The Times is like President Bush.They are both arogant.When the times makes a mistake it refuses to admit it.Even when its own Omsbudsmen says it made a mistake.The Newspapers Editors and Publisher refuse to admit it.
The left can be just as arogant as the Right .
JOHNYJ said:
The left can be just as arogant as the Right.
These sorts of things are more personal problem than political stance, doncha know.
I will just say that I have not enjoyed the direction the Times has steered the paper, they are obviously out to divide the country, this much is clear to me.
oldreliable67 said:
If this weren't so indicative of the situation at what should be one of the world's greatest newspapers, this would be quite funny. As it is, it is quite an indictment, IMO:

Thats just an excerpt of course. The rest is here.

I don't get it is that made up or is it supposed to be real? That link isn't to the NYTs. :confused:

I'm actually in favor of not showing the pictures, why intentionally inflame an entire ethnic group? Do you people like Jim Crow cartoons too? With the freedom of the press also comes a responsibility to the readers. I gotta go with the Times, Hannity, and the State Department on this one, showing those cartoons would be fuc/king retarted condoning the cartoons would be even more retarted especially after Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graihb.
Last edited:
The New York Times gets tough. Not with Muslims the Times is afraid of Muslims.While it stil prints grossly offensive pctures that are offensive to christians.The Times is afraid to print any that might offend muslims. Maybe the christians should start getting violent and they'd get respect.
Top Bottom