Matt Welch at Reason writes, "Just Admit it, Newspapers: You're Scared of Muslims."
Then he recounts the excuses given by editors, consisting mainly that the cartoon was "provocative" without a "clear point" and "not of high quality." Well, it seems pretty clear to me. As Matt says, though, "A boundary-stretching case comes before you, and suddenly everyone's an art critic."
I don't get how the WaPO's executive editor Marcus W. Brauchli could say that the cartoon is both provocative and pointless.It is provokes, then doesn't that prove that it has a point? And if pointlessness is now a cause for rejection, how does Doonesbury survive (or half the other comics in the paper)?
No, as Matt says clearly to the editors, "you pulled the cartoon because your fear of Muslims outweighs your commitment to free expression, period." This is another example of our self infidel-ization.