What were we thinking?
Publisher Ezra Levant tells the inside story of why the Western Standard decided to publish the controversial cartoons--and the amazing things that happened after we did
Ezra Levant - March 13, 2006
It is by now trite to rebut the principal excuses made by the "mainstream media," but let us do so again. I can think of five.
First, some editors said that the cartoons do not meet their editorial standards. They are "juvenile" said The New York Times (insert your own joke here about that never having been a problem for the press before). But we did not publish the cartoons as an editorial message from us; we neither agree nor disagree with the cartoons. We published them as a fact, as a piece of evidence, to illustrate what was being "blamed" for riots overseas. If juvenile cartoons could really cause embassies to be burnt to the ground, that is news that's fit to print.
The second objection, made to me by Harry Forestall of the CBC, was that anyone who wanted to see the cartoons could find them on the Internet (though, not on the CBC's website, of course). That's partly true (they were online, but a challenge for some people to find), but that's hardly the proper motto for something claiming to be a news organization. If the best argument the CBC can muster, with its billion-dollar-a-year tax subsidy, is that some little blogger is already meeting Canada's demand for news, then what's the point of having the CBC? Forestall's point answers itself. The mainstream media is now about cultivating an official groupthink; those wishing contrary points of view or who want to judge spicy subjects for themselves must look elsewhere.
The third objection, made to me in a debate with Scott Anderson, VP editorial for all the CanWest newspapers, is that the media self-censored to avoid giving offence to religion. But that's not credible. Not a day goes by without something offensive to Christians being published. The most shocking example, of course, was the photograph entitled Piss Christ," wherein "artist" Andres Serrano photographed a crucifix immersed in a vial of his own urine, an image published in every magazine and newspaper in North America, and the source of much huffing and puffing from editors about freedom of speech. That's just the biggest example; from Hollywood's Last Temptation of Christ, to South Park's treatment of Jesus, Christianity--and every other religion--has had to learn to deal with a free press through peaceful protest, such as writing letters to the editor.
I debated Anderson, and he admitted that "under different circumstances we may have published some of these cartoons to illustrate the story . . . but the reaction is so vitriolic and so angry . . . there is some deep offence here that I don't see in the cartoons, but others obviously do." So, Anderson acknowledged that the cartoons are fairly mild and that if he was truly following his own news judgment, he would have run them. But the response was just "so angry" that he caved in. I appreciated the honesty.
The Globe and Mail 's Edward Greenspon came up with a twist on Anderson's explanation, saying that the cartoons were "unnecessarily provocative," so he chose to censor them. Like CanWest, he chose to outsource his own editorial judgment to those who could show--or feign--the angriest offence. It is horrendous that major newspapers allow any angry heckler to veto them; it is embarrassing that editors would parrot the language of the censors by implying that the publication of the cartoons was done to provoke, as opposed to report the news. Greenspon's argument, too, concedes that it wasn't an editorial judgment, but a political or public relations judgment--the fear of "provoking"--that denied his readers their news.
The final and most delicious excuse offered by the media was that they did not publish cartoons out of "respect" for Islam. But the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal, especially on the key Muslim issue of sexuality. Strictly interpreted, Islam is against homosexuality, abortion and women's rights--the touchstones for the liberal media, as they prove each federal election. Since when did the gay-friendly Globe "respect" sharia law, which condemns gays to death? Since when did the pro-choice, pro-feminist Toronto Star "respect" sharia, which strictly limits women's rights? No, that is not respect. That is fear.
Perhaps it was that same incoherent fear that expressed itself through the mouths of the new Conservative defence and foreign affairs ministers. Gordon O'Connor announced that our publication would endanger our troops in Afghanistan; Peter MacKay said that freedom of speech must be limited to what is "responsible" and "appropriate," and that his department would now "promote a better understanding of Islam internationally." Our troops--including our many subscribers in the Canadian Forces--know that cartoons don't kill people. Terrorists kill people. And the reason we have armed forces is to protect our freedoms. In response to his ministers' gaffes, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued his own statement, correcting the record and giving his unlimited endorsement to freedom of speech. These excuses seemed pretty flimsy to us, and to the majority of the thousands of people who e-mailed and phoned us from around the world. And, according to a February poll conducted by COMPAS, a public opinion research company, fully 70 per cent of Canada's working journalists disagreed with their own editors' decision to censor the cartoons--they supported our position.
Page 2 of 13