New Abu Gharib Pics Vs. Danish Cartoons

I just heard on the news that new pictures of Abu Gharib were published today in Australia, and members of the American media are showing the new pictures. I haven't been able to track down who the American media outlets are yet, but I'm sure more will jump on board.

My question is this: Why are almost all American newspapers unwilling to print the Danish cartoons because they state that it doesn't further the story and will offend Muslims, but they're willing to run with these new Abu Gharib pictures? How do the pictures add to the Abu Gharib story while the Danish cartoons don't? How is it that a reminder of the Abu Gharib scandal (these pictures are from the same incident) is not too offensive to run with, but the cartoons are too offensive?

Why would someone be offended to see the Abu Gharib pictures? I mean, isn't it nice to know what your government is doing? Who's offended by too much government disclosure? I like to know what's going on. Also, there are tales of rape, torture, murder, but not of a lot of Americans want to believe what they hear, and are too lazy to read what is true. Some need visceral images. Consider them current event flash cards.

The thousands of photos, the hundreds of hours of videotape or torture, rape, and murder that congress saw, sure, they don't need to publish them all. But how many Americans still don't believe they even exist? Americans need to see what's going on, because it's the only way they will know what's going on.

Honestly, if these pictures offend you, if you are offended by what your government does, good! Change your government! You have the power!

First, I don't think this is governmental policy.

However, my point is not that they offend me. They disgust me that our soldiers would do such things, but I'm not offended. It's not me that I'm talking about, though. There have been riots, murders, etc. over the cartoons. The fear is offending Muslims and angering them, in the case of the cartoons. However, putting up pictures that help reinforce Al Gore's wonderful ( ) recent comments, likely to fuel anger already raging over political cartoons. Why?

EDIT: Why would someone be offended by a political cartoon?

[edit on 2/15/06/15 by junglejake]

Well, CNN.com has posted the pictures, but I can't find the cartoons. If someone else can, please correct this by posting the links, but using CNN's search function, I was unable to find the cartoons online.

EDIT:FoxNews doesn't appear to be showing either. Again, if someone can find them, please post the links to correct me.

[edit on 2/16/06/16 by junglejake]

Originally posted by junglejake
My question is this: Why are almost all American newspapers unwilling to print the Danish cartoons because they state that it doesn't further the story and will offend Muslims, but they're willing to run with these new Abu Gharib pictures?

It's a question of what the news networks are willing to show. Abu Gharib is old news. The white house claims that the people responsible have been dealt with and the institution has been turned around, and whether you believe this or not is besides the point. The US government has been legally supressing these further images from Abu Gharib since the scandal blew up in the first place.

These are images based on an actual event, and the people publishing them feel safer in the fact that they are probably not going to receive death threats for doing so. Out of fear (and the fact that it's probably better journalism) it's better for them to attack censorship in their own government than to keep stirring up a hornet's nest by printing cartoons that anyone who really wants them can find on the internet in a second.

Thats the simple answer to your question........fear.