CSPAN has backed down from presenting a lengthy statement by (adjudicated) British Holocaust denier David Irving to “balance” a lecture by American professor Deborah Lipstadt, as reported on this site last month. According to the NY Sun (subscription only), Constance Doebele of CSPAN’s “Book TV” described the problem this way:
“We never intended to balance the Holocaust,” Ms. Doebele said. “Using that word balance is kind of an internal jargon that we use here in the newsroom. What it means really is looking for another voice out there. … I really regret using the word ‘balance.’”
I guess we all have our own “internal jargon.” I’ll leave mine out of this.
Good. We have to keep the pressure up on these bums.
I guess these characters think everything has to be presented with two sides. How about a debate about whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa?
If one is a “process person” with little or no factual knowledge about any substantive topic whatsoever (and I think a lot of journalists fall into this category) then “balance” is a way of dealing with things without having your own intellectual shortcomings be too visible.
Another victory in the never ending battle against revisionist history!
PhotonCourier,
Exactly right. Most journalists subscribe to the doctrine of moral equivalence – which can be a useful tool if not taken too far. Taken to the extreme however, one has to believe that there is no such thing as objective truth and that facts don’t exist independently, but only within an individual’s perception. With no hard facts, right and wrong become obscured, excesses are permissible, and chaos ensues.
CSPAN could use a top to bottom shaking up.
I dropped CSPAN when they bent to Clintonista strong arming. They’ve stayed in that mode even though the bad guys aren’t around to make mischief anymore.
Some new faces would be a welcome sight. I might even tune them in again.
Here is a correspondance between Irving and the producer at CSPAN after Lipstadt protested/pulled out and the controversy ensued.
NOTE – CSpan has still not renwed the offer for Lipstadt to come on so apparently their apology is meaningless? And as the email below shows they are/were apparently contemplating having Irving on himself when he comes to the US!
From a webposting -
Ms. Doebele,
I see that our host has chosen not to bring his “internal jargon” into the debate. Roger, I commend you for having such grace. I, however, have no such scruples. “Contemptible” is where I start, and it devolves rapidly from there…
…Make that one scruple. Since it’s Roger’s site, I’ll stop now, and carry on elsewhere…
Solomon has a great post on this as well as the Video link from CSPAN of what they actually aired.
The Wash Post reporter who discussed it was for the most part good though he tried to humanize a bit, though Solomon disagrees with me here, Irving and also tried to make it exciting like a battle of two wills etc….
Reid, the reporter, minimized the risk of this poison spreading and getting stronger as the years go on and he assumes that the public would just discount Irving if on a quick, even CSPAN, show or interview.. As if his lies and distortions can be quickly and easily defeated in that format… and that cracks in the dam plus publicity won’t garner him some further speaking engagements and followers….
The bottom line in my opinion was this -
1) Lipstadt didn’t want to appear with him to give him the respect that would garner him as a “another point of view” just bcs he’s a liar/manipulator and decided to sue her in Britain so he could provide himself a 1 man show in the courtroom, in all his glory.
2) Reid, the WPost reporter, is correct most likely that the way to defeat a point is by more speech not less and recounts a story Lipstadt told where a crazy audience member interrupted her years ago and she said let him speak, so we don’t martyr him… It was David Irving.
So in the end Lipstadt’s other point is that this case wasn’t for now, as many Survivor are still alive and a first hand point of view available. Its for the future… when haters like Finkelstein use the benefit of foggier memories to slyly defame the memory of it, or other’s memories of it, and use that as a tool for other hateful means of their intent.
And Finkelstein isn’t even the real problem.
In the end it will always be dangerous and the concensus may not always be as strong as it is now. And that is scarey indeed for a denial of history and little lies can lead to further ones.
Mike
PS Also see the full post there this morning on Ashwari’s speech at Yale this week.
solomonia.com