Watch this space!

Coming soon ...  but not right away ...

Oh, and why does Norman Spector hate women?

UPDATE (November 20, 2006.): That's it. Comments are closed. I don't have the time or the energy for this anymore.

Comments

[Reality Check]

Antonia, your response is outrageous. Felton makes a statement as to "the (undeniable) zionist [note that he won't even capitalize the word] domination of our media." He also says that "the national press gallery ...[is] mostly female (I think he's wrong)."

First, you let Felton post a slur regarding Zionists on your blog. You do so despite the fact that you moderate all comments, you say that you won't tolerate hate speech and that we won't solve the problems of the Middle East on your blog. And the post that elicited this comment (and other comments regarding Israel and Jews) has nothing to do with Israel or Jews!

Second, as moderator, and as The Star's MEDIA CRITIC, you correct Felton re: the number of women but ARE SILENT re: Zionist control.

Your readers no doubt will ask themselves whether the inference to be drawn is that you agree with Felton. Does the Toronto Star media critic think that Zionists control the Canadian media? If not, does she think that this is a reasonable topic to debate on The Star's website?

[dave]

Antonia, my long gone dear mom always told me that "dave" was an Albanian endearment meaning "sweet little girl".

[william fudger]

Ms Antonia,

Unfortunately I do have the time to count and fortunately I do have the inclination although I had to guess the gender of some of the names. The approximation is, of 371 names, 121 are female. Close to a three to one male ratio. The Spectre though, seems no more myopic than any other Conservative in regard to females.

[william fudger]

P.S.

I didn't realize that the Spectre lived in my part of the world. No wonder it doesn't get cold here.

[Dana]

Spector is just another of those 'former __________(fill in the blank)' creatures who find themselves happy little sinecure positions espousing some ideology or other in some newspaper or on some network that thinks they need to boost their numbers among members of some mysterious demographic.

The whole trend is only going to get worse too as newspapers scramble around in confusion trying to figure out how to make their 19th century model fit the 21st century. But that's another story.

In Spector's instance he's a particularly poor example of the 'former whatsit' model.

I have yet to read a column of his that doesn't follow the sophomoric college essay format.

In his first para he tells us what he's going to tell us.

In the subsequent paras he tells us what he told us he was going to tell us.

Then he wraps it up by reiterating that he told us what he said he was going to tell us.

And in almost every single case what he told us was a shallow non-explanatory narration derived from what someone else said or did in the immediate past.

His capacity for originality or creativity is over shadowed only by his self-importance.

Maybe now that Flaherty has put the lid on income trusts some corporate belt tightening will lead to dead wood writers like Spector being expunged from the pages of the national press.

[Skysaxon]

What a relief to have you back. When you do come back, that is.

Meanwhile, Josh Marshall posts today on a popular topic for Antonia - polls:

So here we are in the final sprint. Five days out. Here's one thought to keep in mind as we go down to the wire. That is, the polls are always right. That may seem both silly and a truism at the same time. But I don't think it's so. I'll be talking about this more today on the site. But when I look back on the '94, '98 and '02 races particularly, each of which were surprising results in their own way, what I think you find is that the late polls were either very close or precisely on the mark. The 'surprise' came only because the arbiters of conventional wisdom have a remarkable ability to disregard public opinion data when it doesn't jibe with their preconceptions or expectations.

1998 was a classic example. Republicans and most of the punditocracy were sure Republicans were going to rack up big wins based on the on-going Lewinsky scandal. In the event, the Dems managed to pull off modest gains. But if you go back and look at the polls, that's pretty much exactly what they said would happen. What happened was that pundits found reasons to explain why the polls weren't right. In that case, the idea was that the polls weren't picking up the intensity of conservatives anxious to punish Clinton for his misbehavior. Folks didn't see the 1994 GOP takeover either. But again, it was right there in the numbers, if you could wipe away the deeply-ingrained belief that the Dems just couldn't lose control of the House. Now, pollsters will get some races wrong. And there is the statistical margin of error. But as we think about all the theories about this election, remember this: watch the numbers. Watch for every last minute change, even ones that confound your expectations.

[Huge Seagull]

Just for the record, I'd like to dissociate myself from this talk of things being "dominated" by "zionists." Thank you.

[Classic]

_I scanned the Toronto Star's online columnist listing. Here are the numbers as of Nov 2nd - in order of top-down webpage appearance:

MEN:WOMEN
Sports 13:1 (excluding 1)
GTA 8:2
Business 8:3
A&E 15:7
Life 4:16 (!)
National 7:3
World 3:0
Travel 3:5
Wheels 7:2
At Home 4:6
Other 6:1 (co-columnists counted only once)
_*Apologies for any errors or omissions.

Columnist* SubTOTAL before 3:2 More (editorial, yet updated?) section is 78:46, men:women.
SubTotal excluding the Life Section is 74:30. Without both Sports & Life it is 61:29.

[Greg Felton]

Dana, your post is brilliant. You have defined the vacuous essence of SPECTRE. Please send a copy to Bill Good ("good@cknw.com")in hopes that he will hold this odious shill to some recognizable journalistic standard.

Again, well done!

[Antonia Z.]

As much as I did not want to stray into these waters, here we are ...

Greg Felton: Huge Seagull has a point. So what do you mean exactly by ''the (undeniable) zionist domination of our media.''

Note that I am asking for a clarification from Felton. I am NOT opening this to a lengthy debate which will end up going in the usual direction.

The topic is, and I repeat, Norman Spector, -- columnist for the Globe and Mail, Maclean's blogger, regular contributor to CBC Newsworld and other broadcast outlets, former publisher of the Jerusalem Post, former ambassador to Israel (under Mulroney)-- calling Stronach a bitch and claiming that the only reason the story of MacKay supposedly calling Stronach a ''dog'' had legs is because -- as William Fudger helpfully points out is NOT true -- half the Parliamentary press gallery is female.

Which is the reason, for the record, why I allowed the original comment (by ''dave'') on this thread, a fair analogy I thought, especially given Norman Spector's politics.

My seeking of a clarification -- not a diatribe -- from Felton is NOT a reason to go into discussions of Israel, anti-Semitism, Zionism, and all the stuff that will inevitably make me turn off the comments here.

Also for the record: I personally do not believe the media are ''dominated'' by Zionists. That said, there is no doubt that the owners of CanWest Global are Zionists. But there is no evidence, none, that Bell Globemendia, Torstar, Quebecor, Rogers Media, Shaw, etc. are dominated by Zionists in any way, shape or form.

And to say so is, to my mind, to bring out a hoary old anti-Semitic stereotype.

One more thing: I will add that Jewish/pro-Israel lobby groups are much better organized than others to astro-turf media organizations when they are perceived to be biased. Media watchdogs such as Honest Reporting and CAMERA are constantly trying to pressure news outlets, even before a story or a program is released, to play it their way.

And now, waiting for Felton.

As for the rest of you, Norman Spector, the Parliamentary press gallery, and the undeniable white male domination of our media.

[dave]

Antonia, you do not need to post this.

As you wrote I was making an analogy regarding Spector's outrageous commentary with what would be (to my mind) an equally outrageous comment for him to make, based partly on Spector's politics and previous career at the Jerusalem Post. I apologize if I brought out the pro/anti Zionists, it was not my intent. I wans't even sure you would be posting comments at this point.

It seems several people are reading so much between the lines that their eyes get out of focus (I'm guilty sometimes too). From now on I will try to stick to words of one syl a ble.

[sooey]

norman spector is a smelly poopoohead.

[sooey]

heheh - okay, okay. joke's over: WHO THE HELL IS NORMAN SPECTOR?!

[Dana]

I am in complete agreement with Huge Seagull.

[Antonia Z.]

Norm Spector: A man with a great future behind him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Spector

[sooey]

ah yes. i remember a norman spector who was quoted in frank magazine a few times. always talking about his johnson "concentrating the mind wonderfully". or something like that. it was pretty rude.

[Greg Felton]

Thank you, Antonia. Glad to oblige. I will be brief.

My statement about the "(undeniable) zionist domination of our media" is based on years of analysis of the content, tone and language of the Globe and Mail, the Asper empire's newspapers and the electronic media.

I will preface the following by saying that the Toronto Star, as well as columnists like Rick Salutin, Eric Margolis, Sid Ryan and yourself are conspicuous for presenting fair and balanced coverage to the subject.

(I am not sucking up——I am stating a fact.)

My comment pertained to the media as a whole, and should be self-evident to anyone who follows the way news is skewed to benefit Israel and demonize those who criticise it.

Norman SPECTRE is perfect example of the zionist shill, as is Reality Check. They both make unsubstatiated accusations and engage in character assassination, but cannot produce one scintilla of evidence to back up any charge of "unfair reporting" or “anti-Israel bias.”

Those who are interested in reading proof of the zionist domination of our media should have a look at these columns:

"Israel, The Lobby and their acolytes perform a hatchet job on Sid Ryan and CUPE Ontario"

“Globe and Mail’s anti-Hamas editorial reveals plagiarism, prejudice and Israeli servitude”

Finally, the most conspiuous example of the zionist domination of our media is the disturbing silence toward the daily misery of Palestinians, who are denied the basic necessities of life and are not even allowed to defend themselves against their occupiers——a perspective that the zionist media refuses to acknowledge.

Hope this helps.

[Reality Check]

I know I am banned and you won't post this, but a few thoughts:

1. Moderated Comments: You need to accept some responsibility for the tone of the debate that occurs in your MODERATED comments, as you are the captain who guided the ship into these "waters." You close to allow these comments (including a particularly offensive one from Maz that has now been deleted) to be posted in the first place. Why?

2. THIS SECTION DELETED BY ANTONIA BECAUSE IT IS WAY OFF TOPIC, AND IS MOOT.

3. Greg Felton: The way your site works all anyone has to do is click once on Felton's name in order to be re-directed to his website which contains various publications connected to Israel. Last week the home page talked about "Canada's Zionist Inquisition." At other times he has questioned the extent and nature of the Holocaust, and defended attacks at Israeli civilians as "sacrifice bombings." There was and still is an ad for his upcoming book: "The Host and the Parasite – How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America." Now who exactly do you think he is including in that fifth column and is included in the Inquisition he alleges exists right here in Canada?
So what exactly do you expect Mr. Felton to say in answer to your question? You know his views, given everything he has posted here, and the fact that you allow him to post a one click link to his website and all that is published there.
He has a right to his views, but I question the decision making process that allows those views to be made available to your readers. You may be part of a cutting edge blog compared to the mainstream media, but you are still published in the mainstream media and, thankfully, one value of the MSM is that it is bound by things like journalistic standards and editorial judgement. If Mr. Felton can't get published in the MSM, why should he be "published" here?
I understand you may disagree, but that's not character assassination. I think it is an appropriate question of what views are legitimate for this sort of blog as opposed to his own personal website. I think it's a fair question.

4. Anti-Semitic Stereotypes: I do appreciate your line in the sand regarding a hoary old anti-Semitic stereotype. But I'm sorry to say that it is long overdue. Many of us who comment here have been trying to point out to you for months that a number of your commenters have been playing that card. Presumably they think those views are acceptable in the moderated comments on your blog. In future, rather than posting their comments and then asking for an explanation, perhaps you shouldn't let them in at all?

5. Tone of Debate: Lastly, and this is a bit personal I'm afraid. I accept what dave posted by way of an apology. Good for him. The fact is that for those of us who are proud and loyal Canadians but who also feel a connection to family, friends, community and history in Israel, the moderated comments section of your blog has felt highly unwelcoming. It's as if you endorsed the views of commenters like Felton and Maz in a one sided and, at times, provocative way that bullied those on the other side. I don't like that feeling-not on the website of such an important Canadian institution as The Star. No that does NOT mean that everything you say has to be pro-Israel-or that we have to agree much of the time--but your general stance and tone has felt disrespectful. That may not have been your intent, but you should know that's how it felt. Take a look at some of the things you have posted in the past as comments back to people like me, Arik, and others. While you have just called Greg Felton to account for his comment (that you let him post in the first place), which is a good thing, I've seen you cut people off at the knees many times in a fashion that didn't appear present in your above exchange with Felton.

[Antonia Z.]

''Reality Check''

You have not been banned.

Most of your comments on this thread have been deleted because they misinterperted (deliberately or not) the original comment by ''dave'' and took this discussion in a direction I did not want to go. But now we are here.

I would argue that your attacks on Felton are rarely on facts but on his character. You do this behind a number of pseudonyms. That is hardly fair.

Lastly,upon reflection, I chose to delete the comment by Maz last night.

You got the last word on this subject.

AND NOW NORMAN SPECTOR, BELINDA, BITCHES, AND WHY IT IS THAT WOMEN IN THE PUBLIC EYE ARE ALWAYS ATTACKED IN SEXUAL TERMS.

Read my email and you will agree.

[sooey]

it's what men with small... uh... brains do, ms zerb.

[Greg Felton]

The problem with SPECTRE and the "bitch" epithet is, I believe, a symptom of our debased languge. Sexual expletives are so prevalent that they have lost much of their stigma and opprobrium.

Having said that, SPECTRE's repeated invocation of "bitch" betrays a mind consumed with hatred for Stronach, not just because she is a woman, but also because she did political damage to the Harper Party.

"Bitch" is a convenient pejorative, and has attracted more attention that it deserves. Far more important, and ignored by our lazy MSM—all hail the Internet!—is how this linguistic sideshow has overshadowed discussion of Peter McKay's asinine foreign policy statements and SPECTRE's credibility as an expert on anything.

[sooey]

well, the joke's on him then, because belinda stronach did more damage to the liberal party than anything.

[Reality Check]

I think an interesting topic given the purpose of this blog would be whether the level of public debate has become more personal and less civil in recent years. It seems to me that no matter the issue, each side demonizes the other using langauge that is coarse and unbecoming.

In a perfect world these discussions would revolve not on labels but on ideas.

But how would the media cover such a debate? Can you get your view across arguing just ideas and not somehow bashing your opponent.

Look at what happened to Dukakis when he said the 1988 US election was about "competence" and then had a bad photo op in a tank. Or to Stanfield after his football fumble (or do I have that wrong-was that Joe Clark?)

I don't think this is a Left vs. Right thing either. Both sides do it-and it's getting worse. The media don't seem to do anything by way of moving the debate to a different place.

[Classic]

_In the interests of fairness, I decided to visit the other Toronto-based competitors' columnist website listings.

Ratio of Men to Women, stated Newspaper Columnists online:
_For the Globe & Mail, their complete list total is 46:20. Per its hard news categories of National, World, Comment, and Business / Investing, that subtotal is 26:6.
_For the National Post, the overall combined total is 36:12. However, not all current name(s) are included under the 3-column listing. Featured at the top of the webpage for today the highlighted ratio is 8:2.
_The Toronto Sun's total is 42:24, with a leading 17:11 balanced gender split under the main category of News; though their Sports section is listed at 14:0. Yet some included names are for past or single columns; for example, Doug Gilmour (Sports) is listed with a latest article dated from last June. Their featured daily contributors are split 2:3 (one per section).

[Greg Felton]

"In a perfect world these discussions would revolve not on labels but on ideas."

"Can you get your view across arguing just ideas and not somehow bashing your opponent."

Reality Check: Are you familiar with the concept of self-parody?