Why CNN just got deleted from my IE bookmarks:

(What follows is a copy of a letter I sent to CNN):

I have followed closely the developing story regarding the protests of the Danish cartoon fiasco. From Damascus and Beirut where embassies burned, to Afghanistan where civilians died amid the protests, I have been puzzled about the relative silence of the news media in the United States to defend their brother and sister bastions of journalism in Europe. A journalist or publication which censors timely and pertinent details of a story (particularly when the story is of global import) to avoid offending someone is a poor journalist or an organization which has forgotten the inherent business of the world of the press. The freedom to express one's ideas in print, particularly in the forum of a newspaper, is the hallmark right and freedom of the developed world.

On your website, I discovered that you have elected not to reprint the cartoons out of respect for the views of others. Since when has that been a concern for CNN? I am an atheist, but over the last several years, on my daily visits to CNN.com, I have been assaulted by religious iconography in photos attached to stories dealing with religion. CNN did not censor photographs of religious figures out of respect for my views. CNN did not censor images of the recently-deceased teenager who is alleged to have killed the gay men in the Northeast out of respect for the gay community. CNN.com did not eliminate photographs of plane crashes, the recent ferry-sinking in Egypt, or the burning of the Danish flag out of respect for the victims of the plane crashes, the families of the ferry-riders, or the citizens of Denmark. Why not censor those photos - which offend some just as surely as the cartoons would offend some groups of Muslims? When the press gets into the business of censoring stories out of respect for one group but not another, the press has made an implicit declaration that one group's orthodoxy is preferred over another's. I have a suspicion that if any of these groups were to request that you censor your stories, you would refuse on the grounds of freedom of the press, and rightly so.

After the initial outcry and demand for censorship in Europe, many other newspapers had the temerity to stand up for the freedom of expression by reprinting the cartoons. I would have expected media centered in the United States - the birthplace of the experiment regarding freedom of expression (see J. Holmes, in dissent, Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919).) - to follow suit. By refusing to show the cartoons, CNN.com has taken the safe route for its shareholders (ensuring that CNN won't be boycotted), but has abdicated its honored position as a respected media outlet.

I don't expect your corporate policy to change, but by following your pocketbook and corporate policy, you revealed what you are: not the press, but a corporation. You just lost the readership and respect of a (formerly) loyal CNN news junkie to the BBC news online.

--[The Academian]