A reader of Michelle Malkin spots CNN's newest riff:

CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself.

(2000 CNN article via Charles Johnson.)

Update: Jim Geraghty notes a similar hypocrisy from the New York Times:

So - the New York Times writes about the Danish cartoon controversy, and includes a photo of demonstrators... and one other photo. The caption:

Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary" was at the center of controversy when shown at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999.

Yup, it's the Virgin Mary depicted in elephant dung painting.

What a bunch of wimps. They'll run photos of art that offends Christians from seven years ago in a heartbeat, but they won't dare run a cartoon that could offend their Muslim readers.

Meanwhile, the former chief executive of the BBC, and an admitted atheist, wants to know why Islam is covered much less skeptically by the BBC than Christianity is:

Will Wyatt, the chief executive for three years until 1999, examined the site on religion and ethics and found that it was “written as fact” that Mohammed met an angel.

The site states: “One night in 610 he was meditating in a cave on the mountain when he was visited by the angel Jibreel who ordered him to ‘recite’... words which he came to understand were words of God.”

The site, seemingly written by a devout Muslim, stated without reservation that Mohammed was “generally accepted as the true, final prophet of God”.

Mr Wyatt, an atheist, said that he had no axe to grind, and was struck by how much more different - “and accurate” - the BBC’s description of Christianity was, where the birth of Jesus was mentioned as being “believed by Christians” and that Jesus “claimed” that he spoke with the authority of God.

A BBC spokesman said: “We will have a look at the wording on the site.”