The Shotgun Blog
« SCC Nominees to face public hearings | Main | Deniers and Truth-tellers »
Monday, February 20, 2006
Brave reporters, cowardly editors
According to this new Compas survey of over 200 Canadian journalists, 70% of reporters feel that the Canadian media should have published the Danish cartoons. About the same number feel that not publishing the cartoons has strengthened the hand of Muslim radicals, who have learned a lesson in censorship -- that is, they can get away with bullying the media, and that moderate Muslim voices have been set back.
Interestingly, about a third of journalists surveyed haven't seen the cartoons. One wonders what that cross-tabulation would look like. Did the journalists who haven't seen the cartoons support the censorship? If they hadn't seen them, how would they be able to make a decision to censor -- other than by contracting out their own editorial judgment to radical imams following sharia law?
Another interesting cross-tab would be journalists who saw the cartoons themselves, but wouldn't let mere citizens see for themselves. Presumably, they are mature and smart enough to handle the cartoons, but the mere public isn't. Aren't reporters supposed to tell the news, especially interesting or controversial news?
On the whole, this survey helps reveal the fake righteousness of those editors who censored the cartoons for what it really was: a decision made under duress, in response to explicit threats overseas and veiled threats at home. Even their own news rooms can see through the politically correct spin.
UPDATE: Here is the poll in full, including its methodology and interesting "verbatims" from confidential interviews with journalists.
Posted by Ezra Levant on February 20, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83475765753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Brave reporters, cowardly editors:
Comments
Not everyone is a voyeur! Not everyone thinks that we should be heading for a war with Arabs! Not everyone thinks that we should be standing 'shoulder to shoulder' with Bush in Iraq. Some of us want to watch the Olympics (well the women's hockey anyway) and aren't swayed by the extreme right in this country!
Posted by: leftdog | 2006-02-20 2:16:13 PM
What a bunch of idiots.
With all the problems in the world, you dwell on some bogus free speech issue about not inciting hatred by publishing insulting, discriminatory cartoons?
There are some REAL problems in the world, although I don't think this blog is about solving problems. I think this blog is about promoting "US good, Israel good, Muslims bad" zealotry.
Grow up.
We need understanding between cultures, not more antagonism.
Posted by: Mike | 2006-02-20 2:21:26 PM
It's funny how now that you've got some cheap publicity for your Muslim-taunting, half of your blog items are about it.
Attention-starved zealots.
Posted by: Mike | 2006-02-20 2:24:34 PM
Not everyone likes pudding! Seriously though, not everyone thinks we should be heading for a society with speech codes and anti-blasphemy laws as determined by ANYONE, left, right, yellow, or green (we've already got too many proscriptions on speech in Canada, IMHO). This should really be your battle, however you choose to fight it, as much as mine, leftdog. Regards.
Posted by: Karl | 2006-02-20 2:32:58 PM
Firstly, there are really no "moderate" Muslims. If they had to make a choice between their religion and any views by "Lefties", they would pick their views. Secondly, they see the West as the enemy. We should stand up for our way of life and not make our decisions based on whether we are going to offend every group that comes here. free speech is a right.
Posted by: Mack | 2006-02-20 3:02:43 PM
No one is as blind as those who refuse to see.
'Journalists'(lol, lol...) in Canada, 30% at least, should go back to their first love - making chewing gum advertisements or crafting press releases that nobody reads...
Posted by: simpleton | 2006-02-20 3:14:25 PM
Mack:
No moderated Muslims?
LOL.
That's about as idiotic as saying there are no moderate Christians.
The Muslim bogeyman's gonna eat your children, Mack!
;)
Posted by: Mike | 2006-02-20 3:14:55 PM
I just caught a snippet on the car radio, John Moore CFRB Toronto; he’s a left-wing talk show host. After ranting for days about how disgraceful publishing the cartoons is, he’s now trying to dig himself out of a hole by saying that all Media may as well publish the cartoons now because, I’m paraphrasing, “ what has happened is now the WS looks like a champion of free-speech and we can’t let these rednecks look like heroes”.
I love it how the left can turn themselves into pretzels.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-02-20 3:18:21 PM
Mike,
This is a symtom of a very real problem. I have a feeling you and I would disagree on a few things but I would always defend your right to say it.
Posted by: TM | 2006-02-20 3:24:14 PM
Editors fear muslims for good reason, it's obvious how violent and hateful muslims can be - especially obvious when they put out contracts to kill people called fatwas.
Other groups that don't like what's published should just learn from the muslims - put out contracts to kill journalists and burn down buildings.
Eventually all news will be properly vanilla, nothing to upset anyone, not worth reading at all. Subtle, feel-good fascism courtesy of our own frightened liberals...
Posted by: simpleton | 2006-02-20 3:29:29 PM
So you guys managed to get some cheap publishing for your magazine eh? No wonder no one knows its name in atleast ontario because theres a bunch of morons behind it!
well guess what, Islam is about peace and respect. And some muslims are extremists, just like you christians, u guys have extremists like mr. bush and what ur doing is supporting your extremist danish brothers.
And stop justifying your cheap advertisement tactics by calling it freedom or speech and positive censorship, we all know why you guys published those photos. Because ur a bunch of poor lunatics and cannot afford legit advertisement for your magazine.
The world would have been a better place if we didnt have mentally declined people like you!
Regards,
Adil Javed - Toronto
Posted by: Adil Javed | 2006-02-20 3:51:27 PM
Adil, if you want to pretend iSLAM is about what doesn't exist on earth in the Muslim world, go ahead; it's a free country, even in Upper Canada you can try that Big Lie and sing, "My, my, my, my Shari'a!"
However, the tenets of iSLAM say otherwise as do the clerics and nearly ALL (maybe ALL) of the reps for the 1.3 billion Muslims around the world who can't find more than a HANDFUL (and usually apostates at that) of so-called "moderates" who disagrees with the ultimate aim of the so-called "extremist."
Ask Walid Shoebat (www.shoebat.com).
As for Mike; the eyes roll. You should visit the 72nd floor of the WTC and see if Virgin Airlines flies those friendly skies.
Posted by: wharold | 2006-02-20 4:11:33 PM
Adil Javed,
Perhaps you see it as "cheap publishing" because it goes against your opinion. This is the same for all articles of all newspapers and periodicals. There will always be somebody that obects to various printed news stories, for one reason or another. But at the same time they know it is the right of those publishers to report on any story they chose, whether they like it or not.
I believe it was Voltair that once said "I strongly object to what you have said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Posted by: Doug | 2006-02-20 4:13:21 PM
>"According to this new Compas survey of over 200 Canadian journalists, 70% of reporters feel that the Canadian media should have published the Danish cartoons. About the same number feel that not publishing the cartoons has strengthened the hand of Muslim radicals, who have learned a lesson in censorship -- that is, they can get away with bullying the media, and that moderate Muslim voices have been set back.
On the whole, this survey helps reveal the fake righteousness of those editors who censored the cartoons for what it really was: a decision made under duress, in response to explicit threats overseas and veiled threats at home. Even their own news rooms can see through the politically correct spin."
and that includes bad liberal politicians like P MacKay MP too.
Posted by: paul | 2006-02-20 4:17:03 PM
I got an opportunity to participate in this poll. The very first question asked to rate press freedom now, 10 years ago, and in 1950.
NINETEEN FIFTY!? I'm 37 years old. How can I (or anyone under 85 years of age) have a valid opinion on the state of press freedom in 1950?! How on earth can this be a valid question to ask in a poll?
Needless to say, I stopped participating in this poll after the first question.
Posted by: Mike Jenkinson | 2006-02-20 4:18:24 PM
Headline: Holocaust denier Irving is jailed
"British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm
When can we expect the Western Standard to cover this story and argue that it is a dangerous restriction on free speech? Never? I thought so.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-02-20 4:21:37 PM
What will the iSLAMic Council do when their lawsuits and civil actions against free speech fall through? Will we see half of Calgary's car dealerships torched? Will we suffer mob rule from iSLAMic thugs?
What is the fall back plan for the iSLAMic community when they cannot stifle free speech? Will we see our own local Van Gogh or Pim Fortuyne murder and point-making spree?
Will they let it drop and join society coz they know the "truth" and their confidence in this "truth" shields them from all and so, say what you want about Muhammed (hardly har-har)?
What does history tell us? It tells me to keep my head up.
Posted by: wharold | 2006-02-20 4:25:42 PM
To wharold:
Yeah, wharold. Muslims did the 9/11 attacks so all Muslims are terrorist. About as intelligent as saying that because some men murder men are murderers.
Posted by: Mike | 2006-02-20 4:36:03 PM
Where to start, Mark Logan. Doesn't matter, I'll just list: 1) Irving was sentenced in Britain, not Canada. 2) Ezra has been entirely consistent in opposed such restrictions on free speech as were applied in that case. 3) Irving denied the existence of a factual historical event; the cartoons are actual documents which in light of the violence, including attacks on embassies, and the bounties put on the heads of the cartoonsts, are historic documents. 4) Irving IS a promoter of hate in a manner which is tangible to a ten-year-old; the Danish cartoons were political commentary, due to the facat that radical Islam is now a geopolitical, as opposed to religious, force.
Posted by: EBD | 2006-02-20 4:40:43 PM
Mark Logain,
The Western Standard has, if I remember correctly, repeatedly argued against criminalizing holocaust denial. What was your point again?
Mike Jenkinson,
Excellent point, but may I go a step further?
It is as ridiculous to ask people about the state of the media in the present time as it is to ask about the history of it. Nobody can keep track of it's complexities today and nobody can be bothered to learn anything of it's history.
Adil Javed:
"well guess what, Islam is about peace and respect. "
It's sacred scriptures do not want for fire and brimstone, promises of torment and destruction for those who stand in emnity with it's tennants. Perhaps despising it's brutish elements is in harmony with your view of Islam as a religion of peace?
"No wonder no one knows its name in atleast ontario because theres a bunch of morons behind it!"
Peace! Respect!
Posted by: Timothy Zak | 2006-02-20 4:41:53 PM
>"With all the problems in the world, you dwell on some bogus free speech issue about not inciting hatred by publishing insulting, discriminatory cartoons?" to promote more free speech about the bad Muslims.
People cause many of the problems in the world, thebad Muslims now included, and the cartoons started in Denmark as a frustration to the undeniable bad acts of Muslims youths especially, the many Muslims living on, abusing social welfare, about 45 percent on bogy and also causing local trouble.
Posted by: Canadian | 2006-02-20 4:54:31 PM
Mike, Muslims protested a cartoon and didn't protest 9/11 as an abomination of iSLAM. NONE.
Are you a card carrying member of the Negligentsia?
Posted by: wharold | 2006-02-20 4:59:17 PM
wharold:
I remmeber hearing Muslim voices in the media condemning 9/11.
But I guess that doesn't fit into your black and white hypothesis of "Muslims are all bad".
If you feel Muslim extemism is a danger, it is much more useful to support and forge relationships with moderats than to promote childish cartoons that suggest that all Muslims are terrorists.
If you wish to really be effective, rather than coming off as a bigoted dilletante, consider doing what will actually work.
Posted by: Mike | 2006-02-20 5:02:41 PM
There's one priceless quote from a (presumably) anti-publication journalist: "The cartoons weren't funny".
There have been a lot of variants of that "reasoning" coming from the pro-censorship side. People say, "well, they aren't drawn very good" or "they're not worth seeing anyway" or "they're amateurish".
That's like handing over your kid to a threatening thug, and then saying "I never liked the kid anyway. He only got a C in math."
Good thinkin'.
Posted by: EBD | 2006-02-20 5:05:10 PM
"If you feel Muslim extemism is a danger, it is much more useful to support and forge relationships with moderates than to promote childish cartoons that suggest that all Muslims are terrorists."
To me these bad apples now all come from the same bad tree. We merely needed a warning sign saying danger, do not eat once again.
These bad people realy did not like us to post signs telling the truth to many next too so they protest.
Posted by: Canadian | 2006-02-20 5:09:59 PM
I love religious dogma..... If everything is Allah's will how can any Muslim be offended by publishing those Cartoons? Their publication was Allah's will, and we all know what happens to those who oppose Allah's will.......off with their heads..... no wait.... that is the Red Queen's line I believe. Anyways, if we didn't laugh we would cry.
Posted by: truthsayer | 2006-02-20 5:28:10 PM
This cartoon debate is about a much bigger issue that Canadians and the rest of the world are avoiding. Muslims everywhere have a right to be offended of the cartoon, yet they have no right to kill and perpetuate violence because of it. If the muslim religion has peace as one of its most fundamental aspects, then I ask, why do Imams offer rewards for the killing of the cartoonists? This is a real question muslims have to ask themselves, is Islam being exploited by the pervasive Imams who use Islam as a tool for political reasons, or is Islam not as peaceful of a religion as it pretends to be.
The people who should be protesting most would be the moderate muslims who should be ashamed of the violent reaction their extremist counterparts have chosen.
As an endnote, I would like to make a comparison between christianity and islam. When the late Pope John Paul the second was almost assasinated by a Turkish muslim, the vatican, and more importantly the pope himself, did not issue a "fatwa" for a reward on his life. Instead, the pope went to visit him in jail, and offered his forgiveness for shooting him. In comparison, a muslim Imam, and Iran, have both pledged a reward for the head of the cartoonist that drew mohammed. Based on these 2 events, we can see which faith is fundamentally based on peace.
Posted by: Gino | 2006-02-20 5:59:58 PM
I could add to the last comment that when a muslim coverts to Christianity, they try to kill him most of the time.
Moderate muslims? Like the Palestinians dancing in the streets when more than 3 000 innocent civilians were killed on 9/11?
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2006-02-20 6:07:21 PM
"Some of us want to watch the Olympics (well the women's hockey anyway) and aren't swayed by the extreme right in this country!
The extreme right is Canada is 70 percent and only 30 percent are real Liberals, the same amount who supported the big loser Paul Martin. About 31 per cent of respondents said major media were correct in the decision not to use the material.
and that is good news for Harper, "Ottawa — Globe&Mail The Bloc Québécois says it intends to keep the Conservative minority government in office for a “good while,” encouraged by the Tories' openness toward Quebec. With the Liberals already digging in their heels more than a month before the new Parliament begins and the NDP at least one vote shy of holding the balance of power, the Bloc will often be the deciding factor between Conservative success and an early federal election. “[The Conservatives] have already shown more openness than the Liberals. The Liberals were centralist in everything they did, trying to infringe on the responsibilities of Quebec. It couldn't be worse that that. I think the Conservatives will be more respectful of Quebec's responsibilities.” Mr. Gauthier said the Bloc will not spearhead specific policies, but will push to ensure government policies are good for Quebec. The olive branch from the Bloc is being offered as senior Liberals, including Opposition Leader Bill Graham, are vowing to fight hard against the Conservatives' main election platforms and attacking the NDP. Former finance minister Ralph Goodale, who is now the Liberal House Leader, repeated his party's position that the Tories should not count on them to prop up the government. "
Posted by: Canadian | 2006-02-20 6:17:08 PM
"Some of us want to watch the Olympics (well the women's hockey anyway) and aren't swayed by the extreme right in this country!
The extreme right is Canada is 70 percent and only 30 percent are real Liberals, the same amount who supported the big loser Paul Martin. About 31 per cent of respondents said major media were correct in the decision not to use the material.
and that is good news for Harper, "Ottawa — Globe&Mail The Bloc Québécois says it intends to keep the Conservative minority government in office for a “good while,” encouraged by the Tories' openness toward Quebec. With the Liberals already digging in their heels more than a month before the new Parliament begins and the NDP at least one vote shy of holding the balance of power, the Bloc will often be the deciding factor between Conservative success and an early federal election. “[The Conservatives] have already shown more openness than the Liberals. The Liberals were centralist in everything they did, trying to infringe on the responsibilities of Quebec. It couldn't be worse that that. I think the Conservatives will be more respectful of Quebec's responsibilities.” Mr. Gauthier said the Bloc will not spearhead specific policies, but will push to ensure government policies are good for Quebec. The olive branch from the Bloc is being offered as senior Liberals, including Opposition Leader Bill Graham, are vowing to fight hard against the Conservatives' main election platforms and attacking the NDP. Former finance minister Ralph Goodale, who is now the Liberal House Leader, repeated his party's position that the Tories should not count on them to prop up the government. "
Posted by: Canadian | 2006-02-20 6:19:08 PM
If the Muslim religion is so wonderful, why is
an American Muslim Leader so closely affiliating himself (and hence, the Muslim religion), with the "mafia of religions," $cientology?" Don't tell me you actually think $cientology believes in "freedom" and "human rights"?
AMERICAN MUSLIM LEADER TO RECEIVE AWARD FOR HUMAN RIGHTS WORK
Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Syeed, Secretary General of the Islamic Society of North America, which links more than 2,000 mosques and centers through the United States and Canada, is one of four individuals to be honored at Freedom Magazine’s 35th anniversary Human Rights Leadership Awards dinner July 9.
“In these times of increased conflict and threat of violence, Dr. Syeed’s work for the fundamental concepts of human rights and freedoms are more important than ever,” said Tom Paquette, editor of Freedom, the human rights journal published by the Church of Scientology since 1968. “In these rights resides the greatest security a nation and its people can have.”
Posted by: smitty | 2006-02-20 6:46:21 PM
Gino: Yeah, the Catholic church is a fine history of tolerance. The Inquisition comes to mind.
Posted by: Mike | 2006-02-20 6:46:47 PM
Remi: You see footage of Palestinians dancing in the street and deduce from that that there are no Muslim moderates? Moron.
Posted by: Mike | 2006-02-20 6:48:12 PM
It would be wrong to think of Muslims as "all the same". It would be wrong to think of Westerners as "all the same". Half the US did NOT vote for Bush - twice. And most Muslims abhore what happened on 911.
I know that not all Muslim's have the same agenda as Bin Ladden, so Muslims really should make more of an effort not to paint all Westerners with the same brush. They have done this by attacking people and places that have nothing to do with the making or publishing of the cartoons. Not all of us Westerners share a single brain, so why attack just any of us for the actions of a few? Why attack at all? How about dialog! It works!
Muslim violence directed randomly at all things Western, ironically, could cause some to see the cartoon as a self-fullfilling prophecy.
BTW hats off to Western Standard Magazine for fearlessly reporting what turned into a big story.
Ink or violence - which is worse?
Posted by: Citizen of the Earth | 2006-02-20 6:54:46 PM
ISLAM HAS BEEN CAUGHT LYING TO ENTIRE WORLD!
Many Muslims have told us it is an "insult" and "blasphemous" to show pictures of Prophet Muhammad. But it has been revealed that a popular Egyptian newspaper had printed the Muhammad cartoons. And there was to outrage.
Last October 2005, during Ramadan of all things, the Egyptian newspaper Al Fagr printed a number of the cartoons for all to see, including the "bomb on head" cartoon. Guess what? There were no riots!
See for yourself:
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html
Posted by: Doug | 2006-02-20 7:03:54 PM
Busted. Thanks for digging that up Doug.
It's a bit like when Mr. Bush cries wolf to keep a story off the front page. Those Arabs aren't dumb are they?
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-20 7:10:43 PM
ISLAM HAS BEEN CAUGHT LYING TO ENTIRE WORLD!
Many Muslims have told us it is an "insult" and "blasphemous" to show pictures of Prophet Muhammad. But it has been revealed that a popular Egyptian newspaper had printed the Muhammad cartoons. And there was to outrage.
Last October 2005, during Ramadan of all things, the Egyptian newspaper Al Fagr printed a number of the cartoons for all to see, including the "bomb on head" cartoon. Guess what? There were no riots!
I have openly said this cartoon fiasco was a false Muslim protest, being used mainly as a wrong excuse to force Islam down other people's truth, and an attempt to cover up the truth about Islam and it's followers where an attack is better than a defensive position
Islam is undeniably made up of too many hypocrites, liars but murders as well and this is all really unacceptable.
Posted by: paul | 2006-02-20 7:12:52 PM
Dan,
That's pretty bad Eh? I also sent a note and link to Ezra Levant. This should vindicate him from any criticism or possible prosecution. I'd like to see what he has to say.
Posted by: Doug | 2006-02-20 7:31:48 PM
As soon as I see Muslims getting angry about things like this, I'll understand their pain at cartoons:
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
This is the Hamas Charter. Muslims around the world are being asked to support Hamas. Article 7 of the Hamas Charter provides in part as follows:
The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).
By the way, this is the peaceful prophet the Muslims are talking about. And the mainstream media who are afraid to print cartoons are labelling the appointed leader of this organization a "Pragmatist".
Posted by: Tolerance Guy | 2006-02-20 7:45:15 PM
Will someone please tell these deluded idiots that when it comes to freedom of expression, virtue in secret is no virtue at all.
Posted by: Brian J. | 2006-02-20 8:21:03 PM
Brian,
Please explain.
Posted by: Karl | 2006-02-20 8:29:08 PM
Karl, I assume is refering to Islam...I think???
Posted by: Doug | 2006-02-20 9:32:22 PM
No, Mike, Muslims didn't protest 9/11, they protested that we fingered their religion as one that produces more and more violence the deeper one gets into it, that's all.
But don't believe me, check out former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat's testimony and wake up. www.shoebat.com. If that doesn't work for your little everything-is-the-same two dimensional world, look up Brigitte Gabriel, Lebanese Druse who lived in a hole in the ground during the ?alestinians romp through Lebanon.
Posted by: wharold | 2006-02-21 10:25:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.