selective tolerance

I am sick of all the inconsistent drivel being pushed in mainstream media lately.

Put simply, much of the mainstream media strongly endorses the ground zero mosque as a Constitutional right that must be upheld. Simultaneously, the media strongly condemns another person exercising a similar freedom under the same Constitution.  I'm talking about the crazy pastor from Florida who thought it would be a good idea to publicly burn a pile of Qu'ran's and thinks he will live to tell about it.

A clear example of this is Jon Stewart's position on the issues. ((http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-8-2010/weekend-at-burnies)) Tonight, Stewart implied that the two were comically unrelated. Of course he has to, or else he'd seem like an inconsistent fool. But the truth is there is no explanation as to why one action should be tolerated and one shouldn't. Since the Ground Zero Mosque was framed as a legal, Constitutional rights issue and sensitivity was thrown under the bus, why isn't the Qu'ran-burning story framed in the same way?

I suspect the reason they are framed differently is so that two different positions can be taken without being blatantly contradictory.

I am not here to say which is right and which is wrong. But you can't be selectively tolerant and still hold any credibility. Pick a philosophy, and stick with it, Stewart.