What Wente Wrote
Sun, 2008-10-26 15:54
#1
What Wente Wrote
Sun, 2008-10-26 15:54
#2
See full article HERE:
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=76894]What Wente Wrote Was Racist[/url]
quote:
Ms. Wente should not be allowed to keep her position at the Globe and Mail after publishing such virulent lies, while Mr. Pound should resign his Olympic Committee position and McGill Chancellorship.The newspaper should distance itself from her remarks and work instead to build understanding of different cultures. I am urging people everywhere to write letters to the editors, to Wente and to her boss, letting them know you're not buying the paper.
Well done, Ben.
This needs to go further than Wente. She's just the working class journalist. You can be if a lefty magazine hired her for bigger dollars tomorrow she'd be having a radically swift change of heart.
Wente has been getting away with her Euro-centric racist swill at the Globe for years.
Why isn't her *editor* fired? Who allowed this to run? Why wasn't she sent scurrying back to her computer to actually come up with an intelligent article before the deadline instead of unoriginal, rehashed and disproven theories of eugenics?
Years ago I wrote an article called, "You PEOPLE!" that my editor passed by *two lawyers* before the paper agreed to run it. It was true anecdotes from Native/Metis people of Euro-Canadians starting statements with "You people...[ought to]" and our replies.
When I wrote about Mi'kmaq fishing rights, I had to wait for the article to pass a lawyer and a board meeting.
Yet this woman gets away with this? Some editor waved a pen over it and threw it on the pile?
She's a small fish. She's just another loud-mouthed bigot who realizes that controversy sells newspapers. Journalism students are taught "where's the conflict?" and some, if they can't find one, create one.
Whoever *allowed* that column to run needs to be sacked. They've somehow come to believe that creating conflict to sell newspapers is more important than covering the news.
And that, my dear Ben, is a sign of overwhelming incompetence.
Sun, 2008-10-26 20:19
#3
Yeah, what she wrote was pretty awful and inexcusable. And you're right - what the heck were her editors thinking, letting that go to print?
Sun, 2008-10-26 21:08
#4
Is Marcus Gee still the editor of the op-ed page?
Sun, 2008-10-26 21:38
#5
How can any woman advocate for ethnocide ? How could her editor let her do that ? What about fact checking- don't articles and columns in newspapers have to be based in fact ? I fired off a good email to the editor. Have any of you ?
Sun, 2008-10-26 22:01
#6
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
[b]How can any woman advocate for ethnocide ? How could her editor let her do that ? What about fact checking- don't articles and columns in newspapers have to be based in fact ? I fired off a good email to the editor. Have any of you ?[/b]
Actually, op ed articles don't have to be based on fact, that's why they're "op ed".
I'm kinda torn on this one. I'm anti-censorship.
Where I am struggling is that the Globe editors are preferring controversy [believe me, no editor would have missed this furor] for the sake of controversy.
There's controversy for the sake of cracking a discussion wide open and I believe that's a valid art form. Usually it's some outrageous idea or play on an idea that gets people thinking. An editor can qualify that difference.
Sometimes, it's done for humour, or irony.
This wasn't. She wasn't arguing why the original fellow [sorry name escapes me] should not be censured which might have had some merit--she was yanking out the old tired eugenics argument to stir up a shitstorm. She knew exactly what she was doing.
I have to wonder if the editor requested her to write an article on that topic.
I'm not sure I want to give her attention for being divisive.
Besides folks if you want to do a smack down--boycott the Globe's advertisers. Write them and tell them you are doing it. Don't waste your time playing the "letters to the editor" game because that's *exactly* why she wrote it
Boycotting advertisers hits where it hurts.
Mon, 2008-10-27 07:55
#7
Krystalline Kraus
I actually don't feel that the editor is culpable for what Wente wrote, in my own opinion. Only the journalist, in the end.
Sure, the editor here let the article go to print. But editors should not stand in the way of letting controversial stories go to print. But the writer has to take personal responsibility for that controversial content**.
The editor here is at fault for not properly looking over the article to see if it was factually correct and written in good faith. It should not be the public's (Bob Powless') job. The editor can be accused of sloppy journalism, only.
(**by responsibility, I mean in the fact that there is no such thing as objectivity, so Wente should take responsibility for her opinion).
Mon, 2008-10-27 08:15
#8
quote:
Originally posted by statica:
[b]I actually don't feel that the editor is culpable for what Wente wrote, in my own opinion. Only the journalist, in the end.Sure, the editor here let the article go to print. But editors should not stand in the way of letting controversial stories go to print. But the writer has to take personal responsibility for that controversial content**.
The editor here is at fault for not properly looking over the article to see if it was factually correct and written in good faith. It should not be the public's (Bob Powless') job. The editor can be accused of sloppy journalism, only.
(**by responsibility, I mean in the fact that there is no such thing as objectivity, so Wente should take responsibility for her opinion).[/b]
Ah thanks statica--well put and helpful. I also believe that *all* stories are inherently biased. The honest thing to do is *say it upfront*
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] I'm really concrete so...
What needs to happen here, in your opinion?
Mon, 2008-10-27 08:20
#9
quote:
Originally posted by statica:
[b]I actually don't feel that the editor is culpable for what Wente wrote, in my own opinion. Only the journalist, in the end.Sure, the editor here let the article go to print. But editors should not stand in the way of letting controversial stories go to print. But the writer has to take personal responsibility for that controversial content**.[/b]
I don't know. I'm also torn on this one. I mean, I'm not torn about the content - it was reprehensible and racist.
I'm not sure if the editor should have stepped in or not, but I lean towards thinking that s/he should have. On the other hand, columnists are supposed to be free to be controversial. On the third hand [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] , columnists can't say ANYTHING they want - every publication has at least SOME minimum journalistic standards for offensiveness and racism and such, and to me, it says something about the Globe that this didn't fall beneath theirs.
What I'm also torn about is the movement that's springing up to try to get her fired for it. I'd rather they publish a counterpoint than fire her. Why make a martyr out of her? I disagree with a lot of columnists but don't want to see them fired because of it. There are a lot of people who think like Wente does. Isn't it better for her (and those readers who agree with her) to be rebutted through the letters section and possibly by a progressive guest column? (Or, more radically, they could actually, you know, hire a regular columnist who takes a different viewpoint than Wente.)
Mon, 2008-10-27 08:30
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]...every publication has at least SOME minimum journalistic standards for offensiveness and racism and such, and to me, it says something about the Globe that this didn't fall beneath theirs.[/b]
The [i]Globe[/i] editorial board recently endorsed Stephen Harper. To do so they rationalized away two and a half years of attacks on independent government bodies, sabotage of parliamentary committees and blatant use of government resources for partisan purposes by saying that Harper was "growing into the job." So maybe they have the same attitude towards their op-ed page. It isn't that Wente's a racist, it's just that she's still growing into the job (and should be getting it right about the time the sun goes nova). That column wasn't a vile piece of hackery, it was a training accident.
Mon, 2008-10-27 09:28
#11
What specifically is the editor's job then ?
Mon, 2008-10-27 09:30
#12
Also, while I am all for free speach and against censorship, there's a line where speech becomes hate speech or harmful- and I think this article does that because it reinforces racism.
Mon, 2008-10-27 09:37
#13
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I don't know. I'm also torn on this one. I mean, I'm not torn about the content - it was reprehensible and racist.
I'm not sure if the editor should have stepped in or not, but I lean towards thinking that s/he should have. On the other hand, columnists are supposed to be free to be controversial. On the third hand [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] , columnists can't say ANYTHING they want - every publication has at least SOME minimum journalistic standards for offensiveness and racism and such, and to me, it says something about the Globe that this didn't fall beneath theirs.
What I'm also torn about is the movement that's springing up to try to get her fired for it. I'd rather they publish a counterpoint than fire her. Why make a martyr out of her? I disagree with a lot of columnists but don't want to see them fired because of it. There are a lot of people who think like Wente does. Isn't it better for her (and those readers who agree with her) to be rebutted through the letters section and possibly by a progressive guest column? (Or, more radically, they could actually, you know, hire a regular columnist who takes a different viewpoint than Wente.)[/b]
Can you imagine some poor progressive working at the Globe? Only if they write from home and email it in on the deadline. Otherwise, they'll be in a rubber room by the end of the probation period [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
The problem [from an editorial viewpoint] with Wente's column isn't just the blatant racism for the cause of creating controversy. It's the trotting forth of the junk science of eugenics as fact.
It's the lack of research to validate her points and her inability to back up those viewpoints with critical thinking rather than the same tired, "the big bad liberals have it wrong and they're pushing us all around!"
Frankly, anyone who has ever debated two sides of a question in high school could have put forth a better argument. That's why I believe it to be an editorial problem.
She hasn't even the sense to rebut her own argument in closing then shoot down the rebuttal.
That counts it as a rant. Not an op ed.
It's time she took remedial English essay/op ed writing 101 [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-10-27 09:49
#14
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:
[b]The [i]Globe[/i] editorial board recently endorsed Stephen Harper. To do so they rationalized away two and a half years of attacks on independent government bodies, sabotage of parliamentary committees and blatant use of government resources for partisan purposes by saying that Harper was "growing into the job." So maybe they have the same attitude towards their op-ed page. It isn't that Wente's a racist, it's just that she's still growing into the job (and should be getting it right about the time the sun goes nova). That column wasn't a vile piece of hackery, it was a training accident.[/b]
"Training accident" [thanks for the chuckle]?
According to a blogger that followed Wente for years, about 1/3 of her columns are anti-minority. From what I've seen, she's been trotting out the same swill for years.
That could mean a few things.
[LIST]A) The Globe hired her, knowing she was bigot and hoping for the inevitable shitstorm of controversy to jack up sales.
B) They were hoping to appeal to people just slightly left of the KKK to increase readership.
C) They were hoping that if a woman said it, it might be more acceptable than coming from the pen of a middle-class Euro-Canadian male.
D) It fits their conservative agenda and benefits their position as the conservatives leap into the fray to "rescue" her from the Big Bad Politically Correct Lefties.
E) It's the Globe's way of saying, "See, we don't discriminate against women!" [so long as they're more right-wing than Regan] while saving her from the lefty wolves--akin to the Thatcher effect.[/LIST]
Pick one, all, or none of the above [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
/facepalm
Mon, 2008-10-27 11:00
#15
I can't support the idea of encouraging a publication to fire a columnist because of what s/he wrote. You are welcome to complain to the G&M and to engage Wente or anyone else in civil discussion about her POV. But, as folks who celebrate a diversity of voices, we should not be condoning the silencing of even one, as much as you might disagree with what was said.
Mon, 2008-10-27 11:04
#16
When Heather Mallick quit the Globe wasn't it over an editor changing one of her columns without consultation?
Mon, 2008-10-27 11:20
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:
[b]I can't support the idea of encouraging a publication to fire a columnist because of what s/he wrote. You are welcome to complain to the G&M and to engage Wente or anyone else in civil discussion about her POV. But, as folks who celebrate a diversity of voices, we should not be condoning the silencing of even one, as much as you might disagree with what was said.[/b]
To be honest, I'm not sure where I sit on this.
I don't approve of censorship.
However, I do find it troubling that a major media outlet is paying for content that is not only racist, but is promulgating junk science as having validity.
I also find it troubling that the media has been drifting and in some cases, speeding headlong, towards ignorant punditry with the purpose of create controversy rather than doing the research required to actually air such conflicts in an open forum.
There's also the disturbing trend of labeling anyone who disputes this kind of hogswollop as "whiney lefty liberal" and other such derogatory terms when such bigotry is pointed out.
There's no question that the Globe is guilty of institutionalized racism.
The question is, is this woman *entitled* to this particular platform [including a paycheque] from which to spew her venom? Is she entitled to be rewarded for her ignorance and bigotry?
Should the Globe be rewarded [advertising dollars, readership] for promoting discord as opposed to actually reporting the news?
Mon, 2008-10-27 12:31
#18
Catchfire
quote:
Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:
[b]I can't support the idea of encouraging a publication to fire a columnist because of what s/he wrote. You are welcome to complain to the G&M and to engage Wente or anyone else in civil discussion about her POV. But, as folks who celebrate a diversity of voices, we should not be condoning the silencing of even one, as much as you might disagree with what was said.[/b]
Margaret Wente should be fired because she is habitually a poor writer and plays fast and loose with things like 'facts' and 'research'. She should be fired because she is wilfully reactionary, divisive and hateful and has no place in a newspaper that fancies itself 'Canada's'. But if the [i]Globe[/i] hasn't figured that out by now, they won't. Wayne is right that Margaret should not be fired because of one editorial. She should be fired because she is an incompetent journalist.
The people that should be censured for this awful piece are the editorial staff.
ETA: now out of date, but still a useful archive, [url=http://wentewatch.blogspot.com/]Wente Watch[/url]
[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
Mon, 2008-10-27 13:01
#19
I can't agree Wente is "habitually a poor writer". In fact, I think she is a fine writer and a good stylist. She does not make a habit of writing badly at all.
To say that she is "wilfully reactionary ... " implies an understanding of intent that, really, only Ms Wente can have.
Let's be clear, Progressives who support the removal of Ms Wente are calling for a Canadian journalist to lose her job, to be out of work, in a down economy because of an opinion they don't agree with.
That I cannot support. I wouldn't support it if it was a right wing commentator calling for a Left columnist to be fired, and I don't support the reverse. If we want a diversity of voices we need to be open to all of them.
And don't come back with "Wente is rich and will be just fine etc. " You're calling for a worker to be fired. It doesn't matter who they are or what they make.
And don't suggest this isn't censorship because, man, if the shoe was on the other foot that's just what you'd be calling it.
[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]
Mon, 2008-10-27 13:10
#20
quote:
I don't know. I'm also torn on this one. I mean, I'm not torn about the content - it was reprehensible and racist.
I'm not sure if the editor should have stepped in or not, but I lean towards thinking that s/he should have. On the other hand, columnists are supposed to be free to be controversial. On the third hand , columnists can't say ANYTHING they want - every publication has at least SOME minimum journalistic standards for offensiveness and racism and such, and to me, it says something about the Globe that this didn't fall beneath theirs.
What I'm also torn about is the movement that's springing up to try to get her fired for it. I'd rather they publish a counterpoint than fire her. Why make a martyr out of her? I disagree with a lot of columnists but don't want to see them fired because of it. There are a lot of people who think like Wente does. Isn't it better for her (and those readers who agree with her) to be rebutted through the letters section and possibly by a progressive guest column? (Or, more radically, they could actually, you know, hire a regular columnist who takes a different viewpoint than Wente.)
Like Tevye's monologue from Fiddler, about moral choices, this suffers, with Wente's column, from it's proximity to the terribly complex choices in the real world.
I thought that monologue in Fiddler was a high point in the production. Your offering of conflicting positions, M, was in the best tradition of journalism.
And yes, it was a racist position of Margaret's - but she would not understand that.
Mon, 2008-10-27 13:25
#21
Hmmm... I'd like to see Wente have to apologise, do a mea culpa. Don't want to see her sacked, little as I like her, though it is not because I value her "voice" - I don't. But I'm wary of such censorship.
Quote: "It's time she took remedial English essay/op ed writing 101".
Err... there are quite a few syntax errors in your messages. In years past, in particular before the WTC attack, i remember Wente as a witty, often funny writer - certainly not leftwing but not nearly as hopless a reactionary as she became when she started saying leftists and feminists (for cripes' sake) were somehow in league with Bin Laden.
I don't see a lot of "eugenics" in her writing; more gross ethnocentrism and cultural prejudice. She doesn't contend that Aboriginal people are more stupid than Europeans or Chinese. Don't particularly think she is hateful either; she is too smug to even bother hating people she sees as a waste of space or in the wrong. She's the last sort we'd want as a martyr as all sorts of rightwing thinktanks would just love to shore her up to prove how intolerant the left is.
I know the people who wrote the original missive against Dick Pound. So glad this has had legs. Pound is a serial bigot, by the way.
Mon, 2008-10-27 13:37
#22
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
[b]Quote: "It's time she took remedial English essay/op ed writing 101".
Err... there are quite a few syntax errors in your messages. [/b]
My response to that?
I'm writing in a forum. These are not articles. There's no deadline and no one is paying me. In that case, I would also have the luxury of researching carefully, as well.
If I wanted to put out one message a week I could spend that time. Realistically, the web moves quickly and this tempest in a teapot is at the end of its shelf-life already.
Mon, 2008-10-27 13:40
#23
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
[b]Hmmm... I'd like to see Wente have to apologise, do a mea culpa. In years past, in particular before the WTC attack, i remember Wente as a witty, often funny writer - certainly not leftwing but not nearly as hopless a reactionary as she became when she started saying leftists and feminists (for cripes' sake) were somehow in league with Bin Laden.
[/b]
The spurious venom of the attacks is what makes me wonder if the editor[s] are requesting, or at least encouraging, controversial and essentially purposeless ranting.
Mon, 2008-10-27 15:21
#24
Catchfire
Margaret Wente has been peddling her brand of incendiary editorial for years and her writing has become more so as the reactions she has gleaned have become more pointed. This trajectory clearly indicates a reactionary honing her craft, and anyone who believes that such an evolution is accidental and not intentional does Wente's craft a discredit. And good writing, incidentally, as any decent journalist will tell you, is more than a clever quip or crass arousal.
Of course, the idea that Wente is 'just a worker', is absurd. This is the sort of logic Brecht's Mother Courage employs when she sees a kinship between her peddler wagon and the machinery of the state. Or, if you like, the [i]dйpanneur[/i] owner who feels for the CEO of WalMart. See to how Wente went to bat for Heather Mallick, her ex-co-worker, recently, to see how much of a 'worker' Wente is. That said, she should not be fired for what she has said once. She should be fired for her general shock journalmalism that serves not to educate, inform and stimulate, but to incite and to divide.
[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
Mon, 2008-10-27 17:20
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Of course, the idea that Wente is 'just a worker', is absurd. This is the sort of logic Brecht's Mother Courage employs when she sees a kinship between her peddler wagon and the machinery of the state. Or, if you like, the [i]dйpanneur[/i] owner who feels for the CEO of WalMart. See to how Wente went to bat for Heather Mallick, her ex-co-worker, recently, to see how much of a 'worker' Wente is. That said, she should not be fired for what she has said once. She should be fired for her general shock journalism that serves not to educate, inform and stimulate, but to incite and to divide.
[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ][/b]
Catchfire, can you explain to me a bit about the Heather Mallick controversy?
So, in your opinion, she should be terminated, not for the single article but for her long term history of using her position to promote bigotry?
Can I request your input on whether or not you believe that her editor bears some responsibility for encouraging controversial ranting at the expense of journalistic integrity?
Mon, 2008-10-27 17:43
#26
quote:
I can't support the idea of encouraging a publication to fire a columnist because of what s/he wrote. You are welcome to complain to the G&M and to engage Wente or anyone else in civil discussion about her POV. But, as folks who celebrate a diversity of voices, we should not be condoning the silencing of even one, as much as you might disagree with what was said.
Diversity of voice? Where exactly do we find a diversity of voice? It certainly doesn't exist in the corporate media, private or public. We exist in a social system that systematically marginalizes the majority of voices and this is both reflected and enforced through the media. I find it exceedingly unlikely Wente would lose her job if she did I don't think the loss of one privileged person promoting the dominant ideology would constitute a decrease in "diversity."
I don't believe Wente is a talented writer although she is an effective propagandist and for that reason her job is safe.
Mon, 2008-10-27 18:24
#27
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Diversity of voice? Where exactly do we find a diversity of voice? It certainly doesn't exist in the corporate media, private or public. We exist in a social system that systematically marginalizes the majority of voices and this is both reflected and enforced through the media. I find it exceedingly unlikely Wente would lose her job if she did I don't think the loss of one privileged person promoting the dominant ideology would constitute a decrease in "diversity."
I don't believe Wente is a talented writer although she is an effective propagandist and for that reason her job is safe.[/b]
[Ooooo. You're a hoodie too [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] ]
Good points about the limited "diversity" through mass media.
One classic example is that for 30 days Caledon was erupting and not ONE WORD in the major media.
I've seen nothing about the many sex trade worker strangulation and robbery attacks by two brothers here in Parkdale--and no arrests either.
That's only two examples.
So much for "diversity".
This is discussion is getting interesting.
Tue, 2008-10-28 02:46
#28
Whether or not newspapers like the Globe and Mail offer diverse voices or not is entirely beside th e point. The principle of encouraging a diversity of voices is one the left upholds regardless of actual practise in the mainstream press.
Yes, mass media should offer a variety of voices, faces and opinions. Yes, it could do a better job. But suggesting that one of those voices be eliminated, because you disapprove does nothing for the cause of diversity in the media. It just makes it easier for others to silence the voices you like and agree with. And that's just bad chess.
Tue, 2008-10-28 02:55
#29
Catchfire
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080930.wcowent30/BN... Wente's column about 'a semi-obscure columnist named Heather Mallick'[/url] via [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=002635]this babble thread[/url].
quote:
Meantime, I'm not feeling too sorry for Ms. Mallick. She is a sour, narrow-minded writer - the kind of who makes Michael Moore look like a world-class wit. Her reflexive anti-Americanism is heavy-handed and stale, to say nothing of casually racist. There are many, many ways of dissing Sarah Palin. But Ms. Mallick's naughty, coarse puerility is not among them.
Now, to be clear, I am not arguing that because she showed no sympathy for Mallick we should show no sympathy to her in some kind of eye-for-an-eye logic. But this article does undermine the idea that Wente is simply a 'worker', and that she operates with any 'journalistic integrity'. In fact, the idea that the [i]Globe[/i] is aware of such a notion is absurd. From pogge above:
quote:
The Globe editorial board recently endorsed Stephen Harper. To do so they rationalized away two and a half years of attacks on independent government bodies, sabotage of parliamentary committees and blatant use of government resources for partisan purposes by saying that Harper was "growing into the job."
Not to mention that this administration has demonstrated the most hostility to journalists in Canadian history.
And N.R.K., naturally, is quote right that appealing to 'diversity of opinion' is laughable, especially with regards to the [i]Globe[/i]. Is racism an opinion? What's the 'opposing' opinion to racism?
Tue, 2008-10-28 03:32
#30
Anti-racism. And I think it would be a more productive campaign to lobby the Globe to include diverse voices in their opinion pages, to have more columnists of colour, more Aboriginal columnists, more anti-racist columnists.
As I said before, a lot of people agree with Wente on this and other issues. What do you think would be more effective in changing public opinion - for people to watch a columnist they like get fired for writing something they agree with, or for them to read Wente's column, agree with it, and then read an opposing viewpoint that demolishes her arguments in the same pages and challenges their beliefs?
I think it would be much better to demand of the Globe that they add more diverse voices than to fire one of their popular columnists. If you want diversity in the media, demand it. Doesn't mean you'll get it, but the demand itself will sound much more reasonable to the media and to the public than demanding someone's firing.
[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Tue, 2008-10-28 03:50
#31
Catchfire
Wayne suggested that the opposite opinion to Wente's would receive similar censorship demands. My point was precisely that the opposite opinion of racism is anti-racism: an opinion apparently Wayne thinks would receive calls for censorship.
I agree that you cannot call for Wente's firing based on this article. It's the same shit she's built a career out of. She [i]should[/i] be fired because she is a sensationalist, divisive and poor journalist; but as pogge pointed out, why would we expect the [i]Globe[/i] to do such a thing?
Many of us demand more diversity in MSM all the time. What do you suggest we do when a paper publishes a particularly offensive piece, such as Wente's most recent bigotry? Just ask for diversity louder or declare that such writing is unacceptable in a publication that presumes to be 'Canada's newspaper'?
[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
Tue, 2008-10-28 04:01
#32
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Many of us demand more diversity in MSM all the time. What do you suggest we do when a paper publishes a particularly offensive piece, such as Wente's most recent bigotry? Just ask for diversity louder or declare that such writing is unacceptable in a publication that presumes to be 'Canada's newspaper'?[/b]
Well, if your demands for diversity aren't being met, then what makes you think that demands for her firing will be met?
My argument is that demanding her firing (which you say you don't support, which is fine, but others ARE calling for it) is less effective than demanding diversity.
Maybe neither will be effective. But the former just makes progressives sound censorious and unreasonable, whereas the latter does not.
I've been asked to cancel my (non-existent) subscription and tell the Globe that I won't renew until they fire Wente. Why not put that energy towards cancelling subscriptions and writing to the Globe that the reason why is because they run columns like Wente's unopposed by Aboriginal and progressive columnists?
Tue, 2008-10-28 04:27
#33
The Wente column got skewered in the Letters to the Editor in yesterday's Globe.
Tue, 2008-10-28 04:32
#34
Catchfire
And [url=http://wmtc.blogspot.com/2008/10/globe-and-mail-readers-respond-to.html]... they are.[/url]
Tue, 2008-10-28 06:30
#35
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Wayne suggested that the opposite opinion to Wente's would receive similar censorship demands. My point was precisely that the opposite opinion of racism is anti-racism: an opinion apparently Wayne thinks would receive calls for censorship.[/b]
He didn't say that at all. This is what he said:
quote:
But suggesting that one of those voices be eliminated, because you disapprove does nothing for the cause of diversity in the media. It just makes it easier for others to silence the voices you like and agree with.
He said that if you campaign to fire people whose viewpoints you disagree with, then it's only a matter of time before others campaign to fire people YOU agree with.
Tue, 2008-10-28 06:53
#36
That is precisely what I said and believe, thanks Michelle.
Tue, 2008-10-28 07:00
#37
Yes, I agree with Wayne about that; morover, I think it would be far worse for Wente to have to grovel a bit and admit that what she wrote was stupid and error-ridden than to become a martyr. (She'd get plenty of monetary and other support from rightwing thinktanks, trust me).
But I don't agree with valueing our enemies' voices - that is a very different matter from opposing censorship, or thinking hate-speech legislation should be reserved for extreme situations of advocating violence against a given group.
Tue, 2008-10-28 07:09
#38
quote:
Whether or not newspapers like the Globe and Mail offer diverse voices or not is entirely beside th e point. The principle of encouraging a diversity of voices is one the left upholds regardless of actual practise in the mainstream press.
The reality is we live in a society that intentionally and systematically marginalizes most voices to pretend otherwise is to support the dominant discourse around "freedom of speech." The corporate media mimics "diversity of voices" by hiring people of colour who are willing to repeat the dominant discourse.We do not have free speech in this country unless unheard cries of anguish snd despair from marginalized communities or screams of pain from prison cells and psych. wards count as free speech.
quote:
Yes, mass media should offer a variety of voices, faces and opinions. Yes, it could do a better job. But suggesting that one of those voices be eliminated, because you disapprove does nothing for the cause of diversity in the media. It just makes it easier for others to silence the voices you like and agree with. And that's just bad chess
and if we magically did have such diversity it would necessitate any number of privileged rightwing white writers who would find themselves unemployed. That is precisely why even the most progressive white people amongst us are unwilling to give up their privilege, it might mean we wouldn't get first pick at the jobs or the education or the housing and access to power.
Tue, 2008-10-28 07:17
#39
N.R. Kissed, a socialist or even progressive society means at the least full employment and adequate housing for all. It does not mean redistributing exclusion and poverty.
And what you say about progressive people who are viewed as "white" is far too broad a generalisation. Many white people have fought racism; some have died (like the Freedom Riders in the US South and many white anti-apartheid militants in South Africa).
Tue, 2008-10-28 07:23
#40
I've found that the Globe will print letters critical of Wente - but long polemics should be avoided.
She's vulnerable to humour pointing to her obvious elitist'- not to say snotty - position (like when she tired of messing around with the great unwashed in attempting to use public transit and couple of years back).
Tue, 2008-10-28 07:26
#41
Catchfire
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
He said that if you campaign to fire people whose viewpoints you disagree with, then it's only a matter of time before others campaign to fire people YOU agree with.
Right. I disagree with Wente's position. In fact, I hold the opposite. An 'anti-racist' position. By asking that Wente's position not be published by the [i]Globe[/i], am I validating calls for censorship of anti-racist positions? Ridiculous. 'Diversity' does not mean that every position is given equal footing--i.e. that we should suffer racists as the price of suffering those who combat racism--it means plurality and democracy. Racism as a discourse, as a concept, is anti-pluralist and anti-democratic. A distinction that gets lost when we appeal to hegemonic 'free speech' myths.
Tue, 2008-10-28 07:32
#42
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Right. I disagree with Wente's position. In fact, I hold the opposite. An 'anti-racist' position. By asking that Wente's position not be published by the [i]Globe[/i], am I validating calls for censorship of anti-racist positions? Ridiculous. [/b]
I'll say. That progression didn't even make sense.
Tue, 2008-10-28 07:37
#43
The other problem with Wente's screed is that it was poorly-researched and contains many factual errors.
Yeah, the public transport and SUV stuff was very funny indeed and took some of the stuffing out of her - a person who lives in Toronto and works right in the middle of the city core, when she is not working from her home office. Hardly a contractor or outfitter who needs a truck.
Tue, 2008-10-28 07:39
#44
quote:
N.R. Kissed, a socialist or even progressive society means at the least full employment and adequate housing for all. It does not mean redistributing exclusion and poverty.
Where have I suggested otherwise. The point I am making is that if the media were to become magically diverse right now that would necessitate some people losing their positions in order for them to be replaced by "diverse voices." I am fully aware that is not a realistic scenario but in order for their to be equality others will have to give up power, privilege and wealth. I am hardly suggesting a "redistribution of poverty" because I suggest some people would have to give up monster homes and cottages, 3,4,5 cars etc. or that such people would not automatically be entitled to prestigious and powerful jobs.
I am also fully aware that socialism does not mean maintaining the power structures or social relationships as they operate now. I am also aware that having your voice heard or included would not merely be access to the media as it exists in capitalist society. Such diversity would be best served by public and community prodcasting as well as participatory democratic methods.
I also still maintain that the majority of white people are reluctant to acknowledge their privilege let alone give it up. If I were to be completely honest I would include myself in that statement.
Tue, 2008-10-28 07:59
#45
Catchfire
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I'll say. That progression didn't even make sense.[/b]
Look. You (and Wayne) are advocating that if I don't think [i]my[/i] position should be censored or criticized, I shouldn't ask that Wente's position is censored. That's ridiculous because it values both a racist position and an anti-racist position equally. In a democracy, racism (and sexism and homophobia) does not deserve equal voice. So the idea that we shouldn't ask that someone who holds racist opinions should be fired because it means that someone could censor [i]anti-[/i]racists is absurd, and appeals to the liberal, capitalist myth of 'free speech', which, as N.R.K. has pointed out, does not exist.
Tue, 2008-10-28 08:01
#46
Look at you, putting words in our mouths again.
Where did Wayne or I ever say that we don't think Wente's position should be criticized, or that your positions shouldn't be criticized?
Of course they should be.
I totally agree with you that racism and anti-racism do not hold the same value. In an ideal world, everyone would be anti-racist.
But the fact is, Wente's article will likely find a large audience that agrees with it. That sucks, because that means there are a lot of people out there who have unexamined racist attitudes towards Aboriginal people.
How best to make them examine those attitudes? By advocating the firing of someone they agree with? Or by advocating equal time and space for people to counter her viewpoint?
That's all we've been saying. We haven't been saying that Wente's racism is just as valid as anti-racism. At least, I haven't been, and I doubt Wayne has been either. If he thought that, I doubt he'd put so much time and effort into alternative media and trying to get progressive viewpoints out there to counteract the sometimes unthinking and sometimes blatant racism of the mainstream.
[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Tue, 2008-10-28 08:18
#47
Catchfire
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm a pretty good reader. You did suggest that we should stop demanding her firing and start demanding diversity. That is a shift away from criticism of Wente toward something else. This is what I am hearing from you. Why shouldn't the [i]Globe[/i] censor racism? Because they could re-use the same logic and censor anti-racism? That is Wayne's argument that you defended before saying that asking that such arguments are are impractical. You say that you agree with me but then make a flawed appeal to pragmatics: as if it is practical to keep Wente on as a central journalist while we find some other way to combat her ideas. How can we 'practically' do this when she continues to enjoy tacit approval from a dominant cultural voice like the [i]Globe[/i]?
This is not practical. This is the stuff of dreams.
[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
Tue, 2008-10-28 08:53
#48
Catchfire, I'm not going to even rise to the racism bait on this. You can attack Wente on whatever grounds you want. If you think she's racist or whatever, fine. Point is, folks with other points of view could find some subjective reason to attack voices you support and will call for their firings too. And where does that get us? With more voices in the Canadian media or less? Governments, companies and individuals will always find some reason to try to silence opinions they don't like. Calling someone racist is as good as any I guess, calling art pornography also works, or calling some a terrorist, that's good too. None of them gets us anywhere useful.
Tue, 2008-10-28 09:03
#49
Catchfire
Are you trying to argue that Wente's column was not racist? or that calling FN cultures 'neolithic' is 'subjectively' racist? That's not bait, that is a sincere, flabbergasted question.
ETA: I'm addressing Wayne, not Merowe. Hi Merowe!
[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
Tue, 2008-10-28 09:03
#50
Eh; the Wente column is undeniably racist, not to mention deeply ignorant. This might be acceptable on the letters to the editor page of the Orillia Packet and Times but doesn't belong in the pages of the national paper of record.
The Kiplingesque paradigm she espouses has been effectively neutralized at least in the relevant scientific communities since the late 1980s. (see '1491'). She might as well be pushing intelligent design, for all the credibility of the ugly cultural relativism she propagates here.
The native populations at the time of first contact were generally healthier, sharper and more socialized than the pox-ridden, half-starved European opportunists who traded and raided along the New England coast, before settling on the remains of Indian villages decimated by European diseases. Her suggestion that they were neolithic is a stupid misread of the true state of affairs at the time, in which the cultural centers lay far to the south of modern Canada, occupying cities at least as advanced and often larger than the European population centers of the day. I should hate 'my' culture to be judged solely by a study of Petawawa or Fort Nelson. No offence to the good citizens of either town.
Its an incompetent piece of writing easily eviscerated by a few minutes of mild research. More sinister is the perspective that lies behind it. I disagree that it represents a legimate point in a range of perspectives vital to healthy discourse. I don't have much time for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion either.
No need to fire the sleazy hack, just hold her 'ideas' up to the light; but most certainly do NOT honour them with a place at the table of rational discussion, since they fall so miserably short of the necessary competence. Shame on the Globe for giving a platform to such neanderthal mythologizing.
Tue, 2008-10-28 09:10
#51
Margaret Wente's columns are one of the reasons I don't read the Globe any more. Thing is, I strongly support her right to continue writing for them.
As Wayne MacPhail says, her writing is a challenge to the idea of a diversity of opinions. Sometimes her "opinions" (or strawmen) are so offensive that I used to read them with my teeth clenched.
That being said, one of the things that her text does that is SO IMPORTANT is that they deconstruct the much more implicit racism and prejudices of the owners and editors of the Globe and Mail, as well as much of the elite.
By expressing eurocentric and rich-o-centric opinions so explicitly, she does a great job of revealing some of the archaic ideologies that still reign behind the mask of political correct vocabulary and hollowly progressive rhetoric. Upper middle class business people are usually so careful to hide the kinds of opinions that Ms. Wente enthusiastically provides.