Ezra Levant's pro-Zionist bias in Rebel News is so disappointing given that his reporters did such a fine job on the Covid scam. Can some enterprising journalist dig into Rebel's finances and—surprise, surprise—find that they're funded by AIPAC or some other Jewish lobby? So disgusting for Levant to pitch himself as a "victim" of antisemitism while hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are murdered, nearly 70% of them women and children.
But I'm a free speech advocate. While I agree its fair to take a look at Rebel's funding with the intent of uncovering possible bias, I respect Levant's right to cover events as he sees fit, and to report his results publicly.
I don't think Levant did anything wrong yesterday. If he did, arresting officers should have charged him with a crime.
I'd also like someone to take a look at the funding the recent Montreal and Toronto protestors have received from their supporters.
My working hypothesis is that much of the local funding comes from national public sector Canadian based unions perhaps less interested in the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian's in the Middle East than you'd like or expect them to be.
As for your final point, I think its quite possible that an individual in Canada could be a "victim" of a hate crime while hundreds of thousands of others in a different area of the world are "victims" of a different type of hate crime.
The crimes don't just relate to just a single kind of hatred or a single type of attack.
I agree with free speech absolutism, which implies the right not to listen to someone whose bias you have reason to believe is compromising a balanced coverage of the issues they report, as in the case of Rebel News' reporting on protests against the Gaza war. And let's be honest, someone being shouted at on a safe street in Canada is hardly equivalent to having your churches, schools, hospitals and universities bombed to oblivion. I suspect Levant not of any crime but of using these arrests as a publicity stunt. Worse, of ginning up "antisemitism" while ignoring war crimes.
As for not reporting on specific topics, no one media outlet has the resources or inclination to cover every single story from every single perspective and we all have our personal and/or professional biases.
That's why smart people never single source their information and why real freedom depends on a vibrant media composed of multiple, independent outlets with often contrary perspectives.
This media "ecosystem" currently includes Rebel News, which sometimes does good work, by your own admission.
As for equivalency, you are correct.
A single journalist arbitrarily removed from a specific street corner by local police is not the same as the organized killing and removal of hundred's of thousands by a well armed military force over a period of decades.
But in Levant's case, police were still well armed and utilized the threat of violence to enforce compliance with their demands. The arrest was not lawful, since no charges were laid, but the police were backed by the protestors and their implied threats, as can be seen from recordings of the protest.
Large scale genocide begins with a single act from small groups of people wrapped around threats of violence.
I'd suggest only that Levant, while fully aware of the situation in the Middle East today, was acting in a way he felt might help craft a good story and add some insight to the larger issue.
Where in my comments do you see me saying we should refuse access to contrary views? The way I was trained as a journalist, you do your best to present BOTH sides of the story and let the audience make up their minds. But that kind of journalism is long dead now, in both mainstream and alternative media. Magazine journalism, again as I was trained at college decades ago, is different than newspaper journalism, and is usually more representative of an author's point of view. However, nearly all journalism now carries a heavy baggage of the writer's politics and viewpoints. No wonder trust in the media has sunk to historic lows.
I note your "implied right to not to listen to someone whose bias you have reason to believe is compromising a balanced coverage of the issues they report."
I consider a refusal to access certain, contrary viewpoints you disagree with, quite "limiting" in a person trained as a journalist.
I personally like bias, just so long as it exists within a system of multiple, contrasting viewpoints accessible to all, and we can make our own final decision over which set of viewpoints to favor.
I don't have a degree but I worked as a journalist, originally in the 1980's before moving into tech.
My bosses generally dismissed book smart, university trained journalist's for their lack of any real world experience to support and inform their viewpoints.
So, as a journalist, if on repeated occasions you find that a source has misled you, fed you misinformation, or otherwise proven unreliable, you'd still happily resort to using that source? Not how I understand good journalism after 35 years of practice.
Ezra Levant's pro-Zionist bias in Rebel News is so disappointing given that his reporters did such a fine job on the Covid scam. Can some enterprising journalist dig into Rebel's finances and—surprise, surprise—find that they're funded by AIPAC or some other Jewish lobby? So disgusting for Levant to pitch himself as a "victim" of antisemitism while hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are murdered, nearly 70% of them women and children.
We're all a little bit biased, Sean.
But I'm a free speech advocate. While I agree its fair to take a look at Rebel's funding with the intent of uncovering possible bias, I respect Levant's right to cover events as he sees fit, and to report his results publicly.
I don't think Levant did anything wrong yesterday. If he did, arresting officers should have charged him with a crime.
I'd also like someone to take a look at the funding the recent Montreal and Toronto protestors have received from their supporters.
My working hypothesis is that much of the local funding comes from national public sector Canadian based unions perhaps less interested in the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian's in the Middle East than you'd like or expect them to be.
As for your final point, I think its quite possible that an individual in Canada could be a "victim" of a hate crime while hundreds of thousands of others in a different area of the world are "victims" of a different type of hate crime.
The crimes don't just relate to just a single kind of hatred or a single type of attack.
I agree with free speech absolutism, which implies the right not to listen to someone whose bias you have reason to believe is compromising a balanced coverage of the issues they report, as in the case of Rebel News' reporting on protests against the Gaza war. And let's be honest, someone being shouted at on a safe street in Canada is hardly equivalent to having your churches, schools, hospitals and universities bombed to oblivion. I suspect Levant not of any crime but of using these arrests as a publicity stunt. Worse, of ginning up "antisemitism" while ignoring war crimes.
Only fools refuse to access contrary views, Sean.
As for not reporting on specific topics, no one media outlet has the resources or inclination to cover every single story from every single perspective and we all have our personal and/or professional biases.
That's why smart people never single source their information and why real freedom depends on a vibrant media composed of multiple, independent outlets with often contrary perspectives.
This media "ecosystem" currently includes Rebel News, which sometimes does good work, by your own admission.
As for equivalency, you are correct.
A single journalist arbitrarily removed from a specific street corner by local police is not the same as the organized killing and removal of hundred's of thousands by a well armed military force over a period of decades.
But in Levant's case, police were still well armed and utilized the threat of violence to enforce compliance with their demands. The arrest was not lawful, since no charges were laid, but the police were backed by the protestors and their implied threats, as can be seen from recordings of the protest.
Large scale genocide begins with a single act from small groups of people wrapped around threats of violence.
I'd suggest only that Levant, while fully aware of the situation in the Middle East today, was acting in a way he felt might help craft a good story and add some insight to the larger issue.
Where in my comments do you see me saying we should refuse access to contrary views? The way I was trained as a journalist, you do your best to present BOTH sides of the story and let the audience make up their minds. But that kind of journalism is long dead now, in both mainstream and alternative media. Magazine journalism, again as I was trained at college decades ago, is different than newspaper journalism, and is usually more representative of an author's point of view. However, nearly all journalism now carries a heavy baggage of the writer's politics and viewpoints. No wonder trust in the media has sunk to historic lows.
I note your "implied right to not to listen to someone whose bias you have reason to believe is compromising a balanced coverage of the issues they report."
I consider a refusal to access certain, contrary viewpoints you disagree with, quite "limiting" in a person trained as a journalist.
I personally like bias, just so long as it exists within a system of multiple, contrasting viewpoints accessible to all, and we can make our own final decision over which set of viewpoints to favor.
I don't have a degree but I worked as a journalist, originally in the 1980's before moving into tech.
My bosses generally dismissed book smart, university trained journalist's for their lack of any real world experience to support and inform their viewpoints.
So, as a journalist, if on repeated occasions you find that a source has misled you, fed you misinformation, or otherwise proven unreliable, you'd still happily resort to using that source? Not how I understand good journalism after 35 years of practice.