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

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…

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 -

NOTE THE FAWNING BY CSPAN!

Infamous Holocaust denier David Irving has seen fit to publish – on his website – his odious correspondence http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/03/Lipstadt_CSpan.html with sycophant Amy Roach of C-Spam – ooops I meant C-Span. He must think this stuff makes him look good.

Dear Amy,

that is very civil of you to want to balance your coverage. More on that in a minute. But: How come you never covered such items as Lipstadt’s pressurising St Martin’s Press in April 1996 to violate their contract to publish my Goebbels biography, the result of eight years’ work by me in the Moscow KGB and other archives (Prof Gordon Craig subsequently described that book in the most glowing terms in a six page review in the NY Review of Books — a book you could not, and still cannot, buy anywhere in the USA!)

And on and on and on ….

By the way Deborah L will do all she can to dissuade you from giving me a fair hearing, even if it means losing publicity for her book. Just to warn you of what you will let yourself in for.

Nice touch. The amazing powers of Carnac, http://www.johnnycarson.com/carson/entertainment/carnac/index.jsp this man has.

Roach’s fawning reply:

Thanks so much for your quick response. Great to hear that you are planning a US tour. The timetable sounds perfect, actually. Are you promoting a new book, or is your lecture topic-driven? I’d love to see a copy of your tour schedule, so that we can consider taping one of your events or arranging an interview during your visit to the states.

I had Naomi Ragen’s email on it as well but lost it. Lipstadt apparently appeared on O’reilly immediately as the controversy came out and CSPan withdrew their invite.

Mike

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.

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.

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.