I love how the always oh-so-sensitive New York Times has no problem throwing my ethnicity into an attack, when my ethnicity has nothing at all to do with the subject (the jihad vs. anti-jihad war at YouTube). Of course, if you visited NYTimes writer Virginia Heffernan’s insipid blog to look at the petty swipes, you wouldn’t know about it. She or her editors edited the gratuitious ethnic references out after readers complained and failed to note that they had done so. But thanks to Bob Cox, you can check out the evolution of the hilarious edits for yourselves:

First:

Then:

And finally, she settled on:

On this wonderful 10th anniversary of Fox News, I’ll wear the “Fox News firecracker” moniker proudly.

Thanks, New York Times dud Virginia Heffernan.

***

A few of the comments:

And reader Ryan R. adds:

I find it particularly ironic that they should include your Filipina heritage when it has no bearing on the subject of the article, yet they conspicuously leave out any mention of words like “Islam” or Muslim” or “Arabic” when there is a direct connection to articles on terrorism and jihad and religion-based violence occurring around the world. Instead they become “youths” as if to conjure up a mental picture of a generic young person. Gimme a break!

***

Hey, look: Support, for the most part, from a Daily Kos diarist. Very brave. Thanks. Here’s an excerpt (and look, Virginia, no gratuitous references to my ethnicity!):

Malkin produced her little video and had it uploaded on YouTube. Sometime later, she received a note from YouTube: “Your video, ‘First They Came,’ has been rejected due to its inappropriate nature.” No further explanations. Malkin wrote back, asking for an explanation. Nothing. She produced a video-letter to YouTube. Nothing yet. What’s YouTube up to, if not rank and indefensible censorship? What’s YouTube up to if not imbecilic and tendentious thought-policing? And how is YouTube up to what it’s up to, if not by way of immediately reacting to a few probably calculated complaints to protect its rear and shareholders’ accounts from the mildest controversy’s fallout?

You can despise Malkin’s politics and style all you want. The more reason to stand by her when she’s being silenced, and from a video forum where the outrageous, the crass, the idiotic and the meaningless is full-frontal fare every byte of the day. Maybe someone is organizing a little cabal against Malkin or against material that displays Islamic distempers. More reason still to stand up and defend those who speak their minds regardless of their politics. The nature of the ideas expressed is irrelevant. Incidentally, even if Malkin’s video had been offensive would have been no reason to shut it down, so long as it doesn’t outrageously advocate violence. It so happens that “First They Came” doesn’t advocate anything more (or less) than a bit of reflection—admittedly an offensive notion in some circles, where thought is equated with subversion, or threat to the bottom line. But never a reason to censor.

comments (0)   trackbacks (8)