You all brayed and bitched and moaned that the armed forces prohibited journalists from photographing coffins of dead servicemen. I recall that your reasoning - irony-free, of course - was that the public had a "right to know the whole" story of the war, including the costs of it (as if your Daily Running Body Count Scorecard - which comprises the extent of your "reporting" from Iraq - isn't enough to drill that point home).
And whenever some terrorist scuzzballs (or as you prefer to call them, insurgents) release a videotape of some hostage with a statement of their demands, you dutifully (and helpfully) rebroadcast it, because the public has a "right to know".
And whenever some leftist lunatic emerges from the swamp to deliver yet another bombastic jeremiad at the commander in chief, providing all kinds of propaganda material to the enemy (yes, they are the enemy) you can't get the transcripts up on your websites fast enough.
And when terrorist leaders issue yet another taped message, the content of which sounds an awful lot like the the leftist lunatics spouting off about Bushie McChimphitler and Halliburton, you aid them in their mission by getting those messages translated and aired as soon as is humanly possible.
But then you refuse to publish examples of "offensive" cartoons that have lead to widespread and deadly rioting (example here - one of many)? Isn't that "news"? Doesn't everybody have a "right to know" what the fuss is about? In this solitary case we are to take your word for it that these images are offensive?
Nah, I'm not questioning your patriotism - or whatever lazy bullshit rhetorical device you're currently using to deflect legitimate criticism of your conduct or words.
I am however questioning your fairness, your dedication to publishing the whole story, your spine, your honesty, and your agenda.