Well normally a new addition to the short list that is my blogroll doesn’t usually call for a post; what usually happens is that I forget about it (along with my visitors) just moments after the deed is done.
However, like our featured guest in my previous entry, I too get excited and get that all over good feeling when a substantial blog shares a similar philosophy to my own. Sure Ezra and I part ways in our views, he choosing free speech over anything and everything, me focusing on the real issues in question; he being hostile, antagonistic and emotionally-laden and me trying my bestest to be fair, open-minded and unattached, but I’m sure we share the same sensations?
Ok, enough of that and more of the amazing discovery - I would hate to have Ezra show his teeth over me expressing myself (tee-hee).
Serendipitously, like many great discoveries, I stumbled upon this inspirational site called News Hounds. I’m sure I’m not the first to do so, but I haven’t read any Canadian blogs talk about it and it is a perfect talking point for the freedom of expression debate. Basically, you have a group of 7 or 8 like-minded individuals watching Fox News on a regular basis so they can point out the flaws and biases within their reporting. Before I go on speaking on their behalf and further describing what they do, hear is what they have to say about themselves through their manifesto:
For approximately three months, each of us watched FNC conscientiously for five or more hours a week and posted our findings regarding Fox’s self-proclaimed mission of fair and balanced reporting.
Appalled by our results, we, who would not meet in person until months later, banded together in cyberspace in concern and outrage over the failure of American media, and Fox News in particular, to relate the news properly. Rather than serve as the public’s eyes and ears, Fox and other media conglomerates have become echo chambers for the rich and powerful with whom they have become all too cozy. This blog is an attempt to counter that alarming condition. We believe that a viable democracy depends upon viable media.
The Fox News Slut Cartoon (sorry, couldn’t resist)
Essentially they are doing pretty much what many of the far-right bloggers recommended for the Osgoode Four Three. Does it seem to be working? I can’t say for sure but they are definitely having some impact. They certainly don’t have the resources and finances to compete with Fox News, Time Warner and the like but that ain’t stopping them. Their driving force is passion for a cause and good ole fashion hard work and dedication. Maybe the Steyn supporters had somewhat of a feasible solution?
Before leaving this one as a total score for my opponents–by virtue of my balanced and analytical approach–I will say a couple of things with respect to the Maclean’s case in Canada. It is true, undoubtedly, that the Osgoode team would not have received the attention they did if it were not for the complaint. It would have taken them years to come near the level of publicity and access they were granted by the various newspapers that graciously supplied a platform for them to express their views (for the purpose of business of course). But maybe that is just the way it should be…the unheard are just that and to be heard they must do so on an unlevel playing field.
Moreover, unlike the U.S., Canada has unique legislation that unquestionably weighs in on this situation. We have the Multiculturalism Act (1988) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) which are distinctly Canadian. They recognize legislatively and therefore are a semblance of our societal values; that Canada is a truly diverse nation, one in which we take pride in and make reasonable steps to ensure its presence and unification. In similar form to the way the freespeechers suggest to move elsewhere if minorities and others don’t want a democratic society where freedom of expression is its bedrock, I say the same if you can’t accept the reality of what Canada is. Where does this leave the question of minority concerns with respect to journalism, it’s still unclear, but perhaps the printed press should be held more accountable and have some formal system dealing with these kinds of issues.
On a different note, to lighten up the mood, here’s the News Hound post that caught my eye: Fox News Provides Report on Poor, Victimized, Mark Steyn - And Provides Commentary From A Neo Nazi, Too!. The author and audience see Mark Steyn’s writing for what it is, and the post does a number on Steyn (and neo-nazi) supporter Paul Fromm too.
Here are a couple of musings from the comments section that I got a kick out of:
“Isn’t Steyn living in New Jersey illegally?”
When referring to Steyn’s demographics argument, “Thanks Mark Steyn, that’s just what this world needs…motivation for racist idiots to start a baby making contest.”
And last but not least, “Steyn is Canadian? I thought he was from Australia. And doesn’t he live in Jersey? Or Vermont? I want to see proof of citizenship. As far as anyone knows he was born in Iran. Deport this illegal alien now!”

August 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
sir or madam -
you comment that the `free-speechers’ (surely you’re in favour of free-speech, that of your own at least) have used terms such as `kangaroo court’ to denigrate the so-called Human Rights Commissions… but linking Paul Fromm with Mark Steyn, this is `fair and analytical’ to you.
Makes me wonder what `unfair and synthetical’ would be you…
btw, if you consult the Charter, and the UN Dec. of Universal Rights, you’ll find freedom of speech is one of them - the right not to be offended, well, that’s just not there.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Thank you kindly for your keen observation.
The initial link between Steyn and Fromm was demarcated in the post I was referring to. In my view that doesn’t entirely qualify my mention of it. Through research the link is more than tenuous and to say that Fromm is a supporter of Steyn is not inaccurate. Admittedly it may not be entirely relevant but unfortunately the way the debate has been polarized with such rigidity, mostly by people like Ezra, sometimes it is necessary to make such connections to push back instead of just shielding all the arrows. Further, it was not with such pettiness, vindictiveness and disdain that characterizes much of the insults from the free-speechers. For these reasons I think it is fair and analytical.
The right not to be offended, did I say that? How does trying to deal with the issue of media accountability warrant a mention of this oft spoken obfuscation and fallacy? Also, the legislation you cited also applies to television and other venues where expression is monitored and to some extent censured.