Take debate

THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED & CLEANED UP TO FIX A FUNKY FONT:

The National Post's Adam Radwanski was, like me, appalled at that offensive post last week on the Western Standard's Shotgun. Here's what he wrote about it last week on his own  blog.

I normally find it easy to ignore the yahoos at the Western Standard's site, who pretty much represent the worst tendencies of the blogosphere (ideologues with nothing fresh to say sitting around stroking each others’ egos and paranoia until they’re convinced they’re in the mainstream). And I’m not generally in the habit of following Antonia Zerbisias’ lead. But two of their recent discussions, here and here, are truly jaw-dropping – at least to those of us who don’t spend a lot of time reading hate literature.

In sum, we’ve got a frequent poster (and blogger in her own right) ranting about “the devil that they call Allah,” labeling Islam “a death cult” and calling for the entire religion to be banned in Canada…and when she slightly clarifies her position (without backing down) after Chris Selley calls her on her bigotry, the rest of the Western Standard community turns on her for being too moderate.

If I were Ezra Levant or Kevin Libin, both of whom frequently post on there, I’d either get this hatred the hell down or clearly and unequivocally distance myself and my magazine from it. The fact that they’ve done neither is a much better reason to avoid the Western Standard than any reprinted cartoons.

To date, there has been no repudiation of that post -- at least none that I can find -- from the publishers of Western Standard or its blog overseers.

Anyway ...

Radwanski columnizes on the matter today for the paper's ''Issues'' page. (sub. req'd.) He argues that political blogs are about two warring sides dug deep into their opposing trenches from where they lob their verbal fireballs.

If Right Girl had stood on a street corner calling for Islam to be banned, passers-by would either have shouted her down or dismissed her as a kook. Any newspaper that published her views would have been deluged with disgusted letters to the editor. But in this forum, the comments that followed her post lauded her for taking such a brave stand -- and, in some cases, went even further in their attacks on Muslims.

The blog in question was The Shotgun, found on the Western Standard's Web site. But the issue wasn't the conservative magazine, which of course can't be held responsible for the messages that wing nuts post on its blog. The issue was the broader blog medium that's having a nasty effect on public discourse.

The blogosphere is good for music and trading notes on pop culture. It can be great for sports commentary. It's a way to pass time for those interested in reading the mundane details of strangers' personal lives.

But what it is absolutely lousy for is political debate -- mostly because what it encourages is not debate at all, so much as support groups in which the converted preach to one another about the evils of some dark and mysterious enemy. Those frequenting blogs don't learn much and their views are rarely challenged. What they get out of the experience is having their own views reinforced over and over again, until even relative moderates are converted into hard-liners.

Frankly, I think he's wrong. Just look at my comments threads although, admittedly, since July 12, the ones relating to the Middle East smell of burning flesh. My blog is not the only one that has contributions from both sides of the political spectrum. Radwanski, who has no comments on his blog, has some nerve knocking other blogs that do.

This is not to say that he's completely wrong. For example, I agree with him completely here, although it's not a new idea:

Go to right-wing political blogs, forums and online magazines, from the big names -- National Review Online, Instapundit, Little Green Footballs -- to an army of smaller ones, and you'll read only of the joyous success of U.S. foreign policy and the evils of Democrats, the "mainstream media," Hollywood and all things "liberal." Go to their equivalents on the other side of the spectrum, notably the enormously popular Daily Kos, and you'll find left-wing types working themselves into a lather over the evils of the Bush administration, the right-wing media and all things conservative.

Both sides would have you believe they're engaged in a righteous war with one another for the soul of America. But because they never actually engage each other, it's not a war at all -- it's just two sides endlessly rallying the troops.

<SNIP>

This would be a relatively minor concern if such fulminating was limited to the Internet. But conditioned by their online reading, as well as listening to Fox and talk radio, consumers are demanding the same stuff elsewhere.

The rise of an (she-who-will-nevermore-be-named-on-this blog) on the right or an Al Franken on the left -- commentators who spend most of their time attacking cartoon versions of liberals and conservatives, respectively -- suggests where this culture is taking us.

<SNIP>

In Canada, we're moving slower. But there's little doubt we're headed in the same direction.

Here, the right is a little more organized than the left -- the "Blogging Tories" group creating a community of hundreds of like-minded blogs with similar obsessions (the liberal media, pacifists, etc.) to the ones found south of the border. But it's the Canadian left that has actually shown the biggest crossover into mainstream media, courtesy of Antonia Zerbisias -- a media columnist and blogger for the Toronto Star whose main job appears to be attacking conservative commentators on both sides of the border.

Uh, did he just make me out to be the lefty Canadian version of that right-wing she-who-nevermore-etc. in the U.S.? Doesn't he read my stuff about CBC??

But Radwanski is correct: So far in Canada, we have avoided that all-heat-no-light partisan political punditry that ''informs'' Americans.  And we should strive to make sure it doesn't happen here.

But with commentators increasingly emulating the zealous partisanship of the online crowd in the hope of eliciting similarly strong reactions, it might not be long. It's a trend that should remind us to hold ourselves to a higher standard, to seek out dissenting views and think critically about the perspectives being sold to us -- because the last thing we need is a nation of Right Girls and their sycophants.

But you, my sycophants on either side of the debate, you get the thumbs up.

Just do me a favour will you? Keep it down to a low roar. I am now being bloody ruthless about deleting or editing comments. No appeal.

UPPITY DATE: Robert McClelland in the comments below found this response posted today by Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant.

I think it is a better approach to let the marketplace of ideas sort these things out. Artificially censoring what can and can't be written -- like Zerbisias does -- or not permitting feedback at all -- like Radwanski does -- are old media calling cards. In the new media, if you don't allow people to react and respond, they'll go elsewhere where they can. It's quite democratic, and like other aspects of democracy, it can be grubby.

In the end, I believe that by maintaining a balance of views on the blog -- libertarians, conservatives, hawks, isolationists, people from different countries and different religions -- we will get a great debate. I acknowledge that some of the comments have been less than smart, or even vulgar. But that, too, is the nature of democracy, and it is far more interesting reading than the bowdlerized letters to the editor of the MSM.

Give Zerbisias and Radwanski some credit: At least they know what a blog is, and have one themselves. But I'm loathe to accept criticism about our rough and tumble free comments threads from writers whose own newspapers don't allow them to have free comments threads. It's like when Zerbisias came out against the Danish cartoons -- the fact that her employer had ordered her to comply with their censorship undermined her claim to independently having come to that journalistic conclusion on her own, and she knew it.

The Western Standard will continue to have the freest blog of any in Canada affiliated with a corporate media organ. That will ruffle the feathers of politically correct enforcers, but it will also continue to make us a center of the debate, and give us 2-million page views a month and growing. In fact, the very idea of an MSM enforcer shaking a finger at too-rough bloggers sums things up pretty well -- an impotent scold who can't get the public to obey their politically correct line. That's the MSM in a nutshell.

Two things.

One, I wonder, had RightGirl had said "Judaism" instead of Islam, if Levant would have been so unperturbed.

Two, I am hurt Ezra! HURT! That it took a column in the National Post for you to finally pay attention to this matter.

UPBRAID DATE: J. Kelly Nestruck, bless him, calls Ezra Levant out in the comments below. Seems that Levant has indeed edited Shotgun, to protect his friend Prime Minister Stephen Harper or, more specifically, Laureen Harper. Wonkitties has the details.

Comments

[sooey]

yeah, yeah, radwanski: "ooh, baddies to the left of you, baddies to the right - VOTE LIBERAL!!" get a job!

[Adam (in Mississauga)]

Blogs are no different than any other medium in this respect - what you get out of them reflects the effort you put in. Partisan media has existed for a lot longer than the Internet, and so has intentional ignorance.

Radwanski's column is mostly cherry-picking to serve his point. If I pointed to the Sun and Now magazine, I could argue that Toronto's print media is hopelessly polarized and unchallenging.

[Jay Currie]

Canada has a few rather important advantages. First, we have three and a half political parties none of which is particularily ideological or incapable of supporting good ideas where ever they come from. (Where would the Liberals have been without the NDP to do their thinking for them??)

Second, we have a cultural bias towards politeness. Robert McClelland excepted (and he's getting better) the language on Canadian blogs and comments is generally temperate and usually not particularily obscene.

Third, and this is unique so far as I can tell, along with the blogging Tories, Liblogs and Dippers we have James Bow's excellent http://www.nonpartisancanadians.org/ and Andrew's http://canconv.boundbygravity.com/

Both of these sites provide a way to access blogs which ensures you can read left, right, center and just completely whacked.

Fourth, the Canadian political blogosphere is still relatively tiny. Perhaps a total off 50-75 bloggers would be considered "A" list and have more than a couple of dozen hits a day. We tend to, in the online sense of the word, know each other. This does not mean we agree; rather it means we tend to read and respect the opinions other bloggers have.

Finally, extremism of the LGF/Daily Kos/DU variety does not have a very large audience in Canada. It's out there; but it tends to be ignored.

/smug

[PhantomObserver]

No Zerb, I don't think the Radiator thinks you're the equivalent of AC. More like the equivalent of MM, perhaps.

[Antonia Z.]

I wish it were Marilyn Monroe but I know you're thinking Michelle Malkin. Sigh.

[Robert McClelland]

"the language on Canadian blogs and comments is generally temperate and usually not particularily obscene."

Right. Accusing people of being terrorist supporters, as the right has done consistently to the left for the past 4 years, is the height of polite conversation.

You've really managed to outdo your usual obtuseness on this one, Jay. Kudos to you for it too. The stupidity of most right whingers peaks early and then they fade away but you've proven that you're in it for the long haul.

As for Radwonky, he clearly slumbered through the past decade or more of right whingers like Coulter and Limbaugh trashing the left with accusations of treason or worse until finally succeeding in turning the word 'liberal' into an insult. So there's no reason he should wake up now and be overcome with a sudden case of the vapours when he sees the left starting to give it back in kind. Just go back to sleep Adam. We'll let you know when it's safe for you to wake up again.

[Ti-Guy]

"Go to their equivalents on the other side of the spectrum, notably the enormously popular Daily Kos, and you'll find left-wing types working themselves into a lather over the evils of the Bush administration, the right-wing media and all things conservative."

Not just over the well-documented evil (based on the most credible research and informed commentary out there) but also the unbridled ignorance, hubris and hate. And as much frothing as there is, there is also hours worth of hilarious ridicule and satire that modern conservatives are simply not capable of.

And boy, do they think *that's* unfair.

[johnnykap]

Ms. Z, in the interests of fairness, would you please stop referring to Al Franken as Al Franken and instead refer to him as "he-who-will-never-more-be-named-on-this-blog"? That will establish parity between libs and cons and you will once again reclaim your mantle as a fair-minded Canadian journalist who doesn't take sides. I thank you in advance for your expected cooperation in this matter.

Mr. McClelland (since we're all so informal in Canada, I'll call you Bob), Mr. Currie was spot on in his post. Canadian blogs are polite and seriously underdeveloped. Blogging Tories is a joke compared to something like Powerline. And there's hundreds of Powerlines and their lefty equivalents in the US, as I'm sure you know.
Bob, I'm sensing a little attitude from you vis a vis your comments about Rush. I'm sure if you actually listened to him, you would find him to be an enjoyable, upbeat, optimistic, humorous, brilliant commentator. He's America's Anchorman, Bob. He's doing the job the drive-by media stopped doing years ago. One would think you would be a little more grateful about that, Bob.

[sooey]

robert? you are a beacon. my brother-in-law complains that there are no good canadian blogs - he's an anarchist/red tory. i sent him to your site.

[Robert McClelland]

Levant has responded to both you and Adam, Antonia.
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2006/07/msm_vs_the_blog.html

I'd like to see Adam engage Levant in a debate so he'll find out for himself how futile it really is engaging a right whinger.

[Harbour Seal]

You want nutbars who ban dissenting opinions because they can't handle an open debate? Try the government funded http://www.rabble.ca/babble/.

[sooey]

so... harbour seal. you're saying you have something against angry nanny state sites that subvert humour posts in favour of politically correct doctrine?

[JKelly]

Ezra Levant's a hypocrite... He or his editors have edited posts at the Western Standard Shotgun before. (see: http://wonkitties.blogspot.com/2006/02/shotgun-readers-very-gay-friendly.html )

That is, by the way, what reputable publications do: edit. To quote The Real Thing by Tom Stoppard (a conservative playwright, no less!): "I can't help somebody who thinks, or thinks he thinks, that editing a newspaper is censorship.... Words don't deserve that kind of malarkey."

I believe in free speech, but if someone were to pull a Mel Gibson in my living room, I'd show him the door. Ezra'd pour him another glass of wine...

[sooey]

tom stoppard foretold the end of poetry with the landing of man on the moon, jkelly.

[Greg]

Now, when Ezra claims his blog gets 2 million page views a month, who wants to bet all those "views" come from the same 100 people?

[Todd]

Ah, the marketplace of ideas! Like any other open (or even "open") marketplace, where He-Who-Has-the-Most-Money has the most power.

[PhantomObserver]

Actually, Greg, I'm inclined to think that the majority of those views are from automated RSS aggregators. However, even 5 percent (my estimated percentage of "live" views) of 2 million is 50,000 a month, or 1,888 a day; for an institutional blog, that's small to middling but it still ain't small change.

I agree with Robert that Adam should engage Ezra in debate. I actually heard the latter make a presentation over the weekend, and he has the habit of trying to shock people in order to get them to think (a tactic that Robert's quite familiar with).

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=250

Frankly, I'm not all that sure if Adam's open-minded enough to be up to the task.

By the by, AZ, I'm not sure why you should think that it's better to be Marilyn Monroe than Michelle Malkin. I mean a) Marilyn's dead and b) she's not exactly known for acerbic prose, unlike Malkin.

[sooey]

heheh - actually, they're all me, Greg.

[Adam Radwanski]

Just to clarify something, because I've seen it raised (not unjustifiably) here and elsewhere: The reason for not allowing comments on my own blog is a practical rather than a philosophical one.

To protect against both spam and libel (against others, not myself), I wouldn't want to run comments unless I was able to monitor them. And for practical reasons, that's not feasible - partly because of time constraints, and partly because the way that my blog is set up, I can only update/edit from certain computers.

By the way, that same slightly dated blogging method I use is responsible for the lack of updates the past few days (my home computer melted down). It's not that the blogosphere has collectively taken out a hit on me or something.

[Antonia Z.]

Yeah, yeah. Adam. Whatever. But geez, howabout a permalink? Who do ya think you are? Kinsella?

[sooey]

yeah, yeah - top this, adam radwanski - i actually know a guy who hacked his own site so he wouldn't have to do it anymore.

[Adam Radwanski]

I know, I know...I need permalinks. At some point in the not-too-distant future, I'm going to relaunch the blog with all the frills you could ever dream of. Then I just need to find some slavishly devoted fans to link to my every brilliant word.

[sooey]

anti-fans, then. you want anti-fans. THEY will link to your every brilliant word, adam radwanski.

[Adam Radwanski]

I should point out that I've now managed to get my blog back somewhat up and running, albeit with the odd glitch.