The editor makes an eloquent and lengthy rationale for the Times' decision, but ultimately, it's just dissembling to avoid the label of "cowardice." Questionin

The editor makes an eloquent and lengthy rationale for the Times' decision, but ultimately, it's just dissembling to avoid the label of "cowardice." Questioning themselves over their own standards, the executive editor says “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?” Yet, as others have already pointed out, the NY Times has been willing to publish inflammatory images in the past. Cartoons accusing Jews of fabricating the Holocaust, racist caricatures of African-Americans and Asians, anti-semitic illustrations and obscene homophobic protests, all "gratuitous insult," and all finding their way onto the pages of the Times: http://gawker.com/7-offensive-images-the-new-york-times-wasn-t-afraid-to-1678338658 http://gawker.com/7-offensive-images-the-new-york-times-wasn... I understand the Times' desire to keep its staff safe from harm, and safe from the kind of violent reprisals that might occur if the cartoons were printed. But it's disingenuous to pretend that the decision was made based on the paper's standards, as opposed to fear of the consequences.