Afghan President Hamid Karzai today condemned photos of U.S. soldiers posing with bodies of suspected insurgents, describing those images as "inhumane and provocative."
These images were published by the Los Angeles Times. And they knew that they would be incendiary, as evidenced by the fact that they waited 72 hours so that the U.S. military could beef up security at bases and published them over the strenuous objections of the U.S military. As the New York Times reports:
Two of the 18 photographs given to the paper were published Wednesday by The Times over fierce objections by military officials who said that the photographs could incite violence. The officials had asked The Times not to publish any of the photographs, a fact that the defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, reiterated on Wednesday as the images spread across the Internet.
“The reason for that is those kinds of photos are used by the enemy to incite violence, and lives have been lost as the result of the publication of similar photos,” Mr. Panetta said at a news conference.
But the newspaper’s editors said that the photographs were newsworthy. “We considered this very carefully,” the newspaper’s editor, Davan Maharaj, said in a Web chat with readers. “At the end of the day, our job is to publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions.
OK, so the military didn't want the photos published because they could be used to incite violence and lead to loss of life.
And the newspaper's editors counter that these images are newsworthy. After all, at the end of the day, their job is to publish information that the readers need to make informed decisions, right?
And you certainly couldn't say they're inconsistent. No, you couldn't. As proof, let me go find the link to when the Los Angeles Times ran the Danish cartoon images.
Hmm, this is weird. I can't seem to find any link to that. Wait, what's this? The Los Angeles Times specifically refused to air such images out of respect for sensibilities?
Well isn't that interesting.