The Zerb Begins to get it
Snark aside, I think it is interesting and wonderful to watch a good mind change. I have just about no time for Antonia Zerbisias’ politics; but I am convinced they come from a caring, if misguided, heart. Watching her get irritated with the right end of the blogosphere. Backs off a bit here . Dises Ezra here. Admits in her comments that she is more than a little perplexed with the issue here. (While asserting without a shred of proof that there was a hidden agenda.)
And just for the record, note that I have never really come down hard on side or the other on this one because, to be honest, it is not as simple as too many make it out to be. I am still having trouble with it.
My main problem has been with people who posted the cartoons ostendibly to protect freedom of expression when I suspect that there was another agenda at play.
the zerb
Then slags Ezra some more here. But does notice that there are cracks appearing in the Annex mentality of the Canadian media.
All of which lead to this today:
The more I have been thinking about this — and believe me, I have thought (and argued) about this at length — the more inclined I am to believe that the media should have run at least one of the cartoons. A few were innocuous enough. The ones that paint all 1.3 billion followers of Islam as terrorists — or which portray the Prophet Mohammad as a suicide bomber — were totally out of line and, to my mind, border on hate. That’s why, two weeks ago, I objected to the right-wing blogburst on this. Most of it was about stoking the so-called ”war on terror,” and not so much about freedom of expression.
the zerb
She then spoils it by kicking the responsibility upstairs:
That said, it would appear that a majority of Canadian journalists believe that our media should have published them. But then, we don’t run the corporations that control the presses and airwaves, do we?
the zerb, supra.
And alluded to the Atkinson Principles which govern The Star’s day to day editing practice.
Now, call me mean but I could not help but point out what Joseph Atkinson (PBUH) had this to say about what he saw as the role of the press:
On his death, Atkinson was so determined these principles be maintained that he bequeathed all his shares to the charitable foundation that bears his name. He wanted to be certain that the Star would be run by those “familiar with the doctrines and beliefs which I have promoted in the past” and that publication of The Star would “be conducted for the benefit of the public in the continued frank and full dissemination of news and opinions” and in such a manner as to preserve its role as a great “metropolitan newspaper.”
the star
Antonia has been caught in the vise between her heartfelt desire to be kind and the essential commitment of a free press to publish the news….all the news. And to her great credit she has changed her mind.
Update: Noted thread hijacker and all round moonbat Robert McClelland asks in comments what my “defence of David Irving” might be…I can’t do better than Andrew Sullivan:
I cannot express enough my contempt for the sniveling neo-Nazi, David Irving. That he has such an obviously first-rate mind makes his bigotry all the more repulsive. But … imprisoning someone for their beliefs, however vile, is a violation of basic Western freedoms. We cannot lecture the Muslim world on freedom of speech, while criminalizing it in the West.
andrewsullivan
Written by jay on February 21st, 2006 with
8 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Terror and blogging and culture and media.
- [+] Digg: Feature this article
- [+] Del.icio.us: Bookmark this article
- [+] Furl: Bookmark this article
jay
Paul Denton
DCardno
#1. February 21st, 2006, at 10:09 PM.
Where’s your post defending David Irving’s freedom of speech? Where’s the outrage over that government censorship?