They Don’t Think, Really, They Don’t
Nominations are now open for the most woefully misbegotten left leaning plan in the entire political blogosphere – and I nominate the genius who came up with the “Keep Kathy Shaidle off the airwaves” plan.
If someone knows who that is please drop their blog URL in the comments or send me an email and I’ll see what I can do to develop a dumb-assed wanker of the blogosphere graphic they can display on their sidebar.
Warren Kinsella is sporting this big ‘ole graphic on his site as a link to TVO’s contact page – I used it, to tell them I wanted to see the show.
– thanks for making it easy for me Warren, it’s appreciated.
Scott’s DiaTribes has a series of posts up starting with his open letter to TVO and has contacted the Progressive Blogger Facebook Group about it.
What’s wrong with these people and their like anyway?
Quite frankly I think Shaidle holds some of the dumbest, most bigoted, idiotic, uncivilized, uneducated, ill informed, opinions on the planet – but since when was the best way to deal with that sort of thing to sweep it under the carpet and hope nobody notices?
As much as I disagree with Shaidle the answer is not to suppress her. If you don’t like what she has to say, let her have her platform, listen to her, take notes if necessary (if you are like me you’ll start the capture card and record her), and then use the platforms you have available to ridicule and mock her.
– and that is why I contacted TVO to tell them to put her in front of a camera.
For crying out loud folks, give your collective –ing heads a good solid shaking, and look at the larger picture will you – do you really want public TV content controlled by those who can be the most hysterical about a given issue?
Your no –ing better than the idiots who screamed about publishing one or more of the Muhammad cartoons…… whose ideas are next on your little bully list anyway?
Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Best comment on the matter seen so far is over at Abandoned Stuff
Teleban – that’s actually really good, I hope the guy who said it doesn’t mind if I use it – because I will.
Well said.
TVO is publicly owned and publicly funded. Since I am footing the tab, I don’t want her occupying that platform. Are you saying I am being somehow undemocratic for worrying about how my tax $ are being spent, or bitching about it?
Quite frankly I think Shaidle holds some of the dumbest, most bigoted, idiotic, uncivilized, uneducated, ill informed, opinions on the planet – but since when was the best way to deal with that sort of thing to sweep it under the carpet and hope nobody notices?
As much as I disagree with Shaidle the answer is not to suppress her. If you don’t like what she has to say, let her have her platform, listen to her, take notes if necessary (if you are like me you’ll start the capture card and record her), and then use the platforms you have available to ridicule and mock her.
SL, I totally agree – if the subject of the broadcast was going to be something that dealt with those things, that gave her the opportunity to speak to those things. But really it isn’t. Its about a tangential issue.
Now, it seems to me she will go on the air and put her hypocrisy on full display, since I’m fairly certain she won;t be siding with Dr. Robert Buckman on this.
She will of course, be labeled a “religious writer”….
And in the end, she’ll get to have her reputation boosted by appearing. She’ll gain credibility. And all while specifically NOT having to deal with any of the controversial statements and stances she has made.
And I have to pay for it, with my stolen tax money.
THAT is what pisses me off. THAT is why I voiced my opinion to TVO. And I make no apologies for it.
I specifically informed them of her bile and asked why she was invited. I also made sure to tell them that if she goes on, that she should be challenged on her stances, not lobbed softballs or pussy-footed around.
This is actually more about the poor research and vetting of TVO’s producers than it is about Shaidle. Hopefully next time, they’ll find someone appropriate for the subject.
I’m not trying to suppress Shaidle, I’m trying to make sure that if she is on the air, she must answer for and defend herself, rather than get a free pass, as she has so many time in the past, both at TVO and on the Micheal Coren show.
Give me a break bigcitylib, you are footing the entire tab?
What about the rest of us? Am I not helping to fund TVO?
Please explain to me, and each and every other person in the province who is putting money into TVO with their tax dollars, what makes what you want to see, or as the case is, not see, more important than what I, or they, may be interested in?
I note that you neglected mention anything about public broadcasting content by hysteria level – do you have any thoughts on that?
As a note, I hear that even Coren won’t have her on. You think the guys at TVO might have taken a minute to update their web link to her even.
Bad, bad, bad vetting.
And I reserve my right to complain about it.
But if we silenced her, how could I poke her in the ribs over at SDA and see her get her panties all twisted into knots. Them folks at SDA are certainly scary though, seriously. I’m PVR’ing the episode tonight so I can savour the concentrate sputid of Shiadle.
Of course she is one of those loving Christians who cares deeply for of God’s children, she just can’t help it if God hates Gay, Brown People, Yellow People, Poor People, Red People,… She is just being honest about her right to express her hatred, after all that is her God Given Right to do so.
As I said over at Dawg’s place, I don’t really care about this all that much. But I do find it irritating that TVO does so little vetting of its guests that they weren’t even apparently aware of what her online writings actually consist of.
Shiadle is definitely obviously out classed, she tried to say that Stalin was an atheist and was killing people in the name of communistic atheism – the reply was that was like saying that because Hitler was a vegetarian he killed people in the name of vegetarianism.
Shiadle looked confused and shut up
Peterson is all concerned about the “So enjoy your life” part of the ad and saying that that is the “moral reasoning” behind them
Take that all ye immoral heathens.
Well said stageleft.
The best way to give credibility to someone arguing that our freedom of speech is being eroded is to deny them the opportunity to speak.
What the heck kind of liberals are BCL and WK anyway?
Oh yes I remember now, big f..ng L liberals.
Does Mr. Ignatief support your position on this issue fellas?
Ohhhh good one — Gretta stared right at Shiadle and talked about how brave some bloggers are when behind their keyboards but don’t actually talk like that in public.
Shiadle blinked and stayed shut up.
CRAP! My capture software cacked on me during a write, and died. No video will be forth coming from this night
Shiadle on why she didn’t watch the Obama inauguration, “If I wanted to hear a Marxist professor talk for an hour I would have gone to college.”
– how absolutely profound, this has been good for us, she’s shown herself completely inadequate for the task assigned to her.
She’s showing so little class or intelligence that I think we’ve all received good value for our buck tonight.
Shiadle on labels: It’s OK to assign a label to someone and then dismiss them because of the label.
I have to say SL, you were right. She really is out of her league and it shows.
Mind you, TVO still gets poor marks for picking such a crappy guest because of poor vetting.
And I have to wonder what kind of show it might have been if the stink hadn’t been raised and the pot not stirred. Very different I suspect.
I want Shaidle exposed. I want her to talk. That’s why I was concerned she would get the cachet of being on a major current affairs show without having to do that – where she could hide behind the title “religious writer” and get all the respectability that would bestow. In short, get the glory with none of the risk.
I guess Steve Paikin and the other guests were better than I expected.
And I stand here, corrected.
Too bad about the video capture stageleft.
I complained because I hate the hypocrisy. If TVO/The Agenda wants to feature Ernst Zundel, Jim Keegstra, and Terry Long on any of their panels, then I would say, let this vile five foot monster have her day in front of the cameras too.
But that’s not how our media works. It’s like there is a hierarchy of hatred in our society. Some hatred is so taboo that it’s proponents must be silenced at all costs including deportation and booted out of their jobs. Yet other hatred can be expressed without barely a shudder. In the end, that results in giving tacit approval to hating Muslims, Chinese, homosexuals, etc.
I don’t like silencing speech period. But I would like to see a level playing field. If the media feels inclined to include extreme points of view on their air waves or in print, then lets hear from all of them, including the holocaust deniers and pedophiles.
Beaudine on Shiadle via Twitter “A mile wide and half an inch deep”
@Beijing York – I don’t disagree with you, exposing them is the best way of dealing with them.
sl,
Mea Culpa up over at my place. Thanks for the lesson in the power of free speech and a free press. I let my emotions get the better of me.
I won’t make this mistake again.
” I think Shaidle holds some of the dumbest, most bigoted, idiotic, uncivilized, uneducated, ill informed, opinions on the planet – but since when was the best way to deal with that sort of thing to sweep it under the carpet and hope nobody notices?”
That says it for me! Censorship is counter-productive. By all means, let the woman do her worst. It should prove not only informative but entertaining.
I have seen Shaidle clips twice, and I felt good about it. Whatever reason she claims, the REAL reason she doesn’t allow comments on her blog becomes immediately clear when you see her for real: she is astonishingly shallow, and seems to know it. When she controls the entire communication environment, she can sustain the act. But not in the real world.
She has found a “cause” and a circle that allow her to ennoble her own misery – and the anger it causes – and dignify her prejudices. But there’s nothing there but a veneer of scorn, a googlectual’s handful of cultural references without context, and the reservoir of baffled resentment that defines her.
Well, if I were an otherwise unemployable writer, forced to write celebrity bios and ads for online personal hygiene products, forced to beg on my blog, I’d be bitter too, I suppose.
CRAP! My capture software cacked on me during a write, and died. No video will be forth coming from this night
Don’t worry, I’m working on it. Is there any part in particular you want posted to YouTube?
Teleban is funny!
Your description of this person fits several MPs and Senators and MLAs and pundits of various networks.
Enjoy the show
Controversial people are bread and butter for the media.
Send the clip to Jon Stewart .
Shaidle is already exposed to a wide audience as a hate monger. To put her on TV for a purpose other than ridiculing her hate, gives her credence as a TV pundit like Pierre Burton or David Suzuki.
Fewer people would know Ann Coulter today if Bill Mahr mr. free speech hadn’t had her on his daily show so much in the ’90s. She’d be just another crack pot on the Internet, like the rest of us.
If Shaidle is good enough for the airwaves, then when are they calling the rest of us for our turn?
Oh, and yes you can use Teleban
http://www.abandonedstuff.com/teleban/
and Jeff probably doesn’t mind either
And for interesting reading, the person who originally claimed teleban.com (before he gave it to me {and I let it expire in peace}) wrote that people like Shaidle are responsible for spreading Islam.
http://qame.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-islamophobia-promotes-islam.html
That ought to make her tear a little hair out if he’s right.
Thinking this over, long and hard, I’ve decided that I’m more in agreement with Balbulican and Stageleft, here. I am not a TVO subscriber, but I did talk to my father who is and pointed him to some of the toxic stuff that was reprinted here. Ultimately, we decided against joining the boycott. There is benefit to giving somebody enough rope to hang themselves, so to speak.
And I cannot help but think that we’ve given a lot of undeserved publicity by going a bit apoplectic at all this. I don’t fault anybody for contacting TVO to let them know that these objectionable views are out there, but going beyond that may have been counter-productive. I think some hatemongers crave attention and secretly delight when they push our buttons enough to make us react loudly, and the best response is stony silence.
Iranian People: Give Us Liberty!
I have had a heart for the Persian people for quite a while now. It started when I found out about how the students were being dragged out of their houses, beaten, and thrown in prison. Evin prison is nothing like Gitmo. They really do torture you…
PS. Who is this person? I gave up on TV a long time ago. Oh well. No matter. I do have a slight problem understanding why anyone on the Free Speech side of any argument is actually calling for the silencing of someone they disagree with.
Let me put it simply. If you successfully silence her, what guarantee is left that the next person silenced is not you? I will fight for everyone’s right to speak, even if I hate what they’re saying…that is, of course, unless it is a matter of national security. I mean a REAL matter of nat’l security.
It’s good to hear from you again, SL! Great article. We agree on this one.
“I think some hatemongers crave attention and secretly delight when they push our buttons enough to make us react loudly, and the best response is stony silence.”
Bullseye. Shaidle will be dining (well, blogging) off this demonstration of leftcommienazitalibanofeminiveganism hatred for “free speech” for weeks.
And that’s okay too. It’s a stale dish, and it gets staler every time it’s served. Don’t really hear much about Anne Coulter these days, do you?
@Robert McClelland – I particularly enjoyed two sections
The Stalin/Hitler/vegetable comparison and the bit around the labeling people and then dismissing them because of the label.
Thanks
I disagree with this post.
I do agree that she has a right to speech which is what she practices vehemently on her blog. But to let her have a free ride on a platform which gives her access to a bigger audience than she already has is completely irrational and idiotic. You say that let her get on airways but what if she was more articulate than she actually turned out to be? What if she was able to put forth her demonic ideas in a better way on TV?
Would you still support her appearance on TVO?
“Would you still support her appearance on TVO? ”
In short, yes. She was not being given a “free ride” or presented with a platform from which to vent; she was in a critical forum where, if the accounts above are accurate, she was made to look like the fool she is.
Interestingly enough, she is NOT fawning over herself and her appearance this morning – that suggests she may actually understand how badly she came across.
Whooee! Right off, I figgered it’d be better to let her stay on and let the TV audience see what the blog audience has known for years. When I suggested as much on a coupla blogs, the response was that she was not going to be grilled on her offensive beliefs and statements but, rather, she was being afforded limelight and undeserved authority through her TVO appearance.
Shaidle’s an embarrassment to herself and to Canada. There were many better qualified, less offensive, “experts” TVO could have recruited. The choice of Shaidle points to poor research on the part of TVO’s producers. Paiken claims he was completely unaware of Shaidle’s racist comments. Maybe he was. He ain’t unaware now. He’s got a dedicated blog post on the topic.
I did write to TVO advising them of Shaidle’s quotes and expressing my dismay at them affording her a soapbox. I didn’t think they would pull her from the show but I hoped that by drawing attention to her own writing, they might (just might) use the info to put her on the hotseat. I guess that didn’t really happen but, predictably, she did look stoopid.
Censorship is one thing. As far as I’m concerned, Shaidle’s free to write whatever hateful drivel she can spew forth. Affording her a wider platform at public expense goes a bit beyond merely allowing free speech.
I’ve been a member/donor of TVO for more than 20 years. If this is an example of the type of research that goes into recruiting guest experts, my donations are not being spent wisely. IMO, at least. That’s exactly what I’ll tell the next TVO telephone solicitor.
I think the best we might hope for in this would be for TVO to develop a program on racism, bigotry and hate in the Canajun boogeysphere. Expose the rotten underbelly of Canada’s online SS. I’ll be suggesting that on Paiken’s blog.
JB
These episodes featuring Kinsella vs. Levant, Shaidle, Kate et al remind me of a couple of guys I worked with about 20 odd years ago. After a hard day’s work we would go to the local legion for some bubbly pops. Two of my coworkers had this routine where they would sit across from each other at a small round table and alternatively take turns slapping each other in the face as hard as they could until one or the other would succumb to the pain. It was great theater of sorts and produced no end to giggles around the hall. This is the blog version of that very entertaining and amusing episode of my past.
It’s shameful that Michael Coren has her on regularly and TVO should know better but it is their show and if I don’t want to see the bigoted old cow, I will change the channel.
Whooee! Things is gettin’ a little interesting on Paiken’s boog. Shaidle’s being held up as “a staunch defender of the individual dignity and rights of mankind. Yes she’s sarcastic, yes she’s cutting. It take courage to be so honest and straightforward in today’s political climate when uttering anything in defence of Western values, liberal democracy, and individual civil liberties makes you a ‘racist’. “
[Yup. Out of context. Go read it all.]
There are a few commenters over there tellin’ everybuddy what a great human being she is. I chimed in askin’ Steve to put her on to expound on her superiority.
JB
Coren knows EXACTLY what he’s doing – attracting coverage, attracting viewers, drawing attention to his show. Synthetic rage and canned controversy are the two commodities that Shaidle peddles.
One of the best arguments for public television is that there should be SOME broadcasting whose primarily goal is NOT to attract the largest possible viewership by any means. Do you suppose TVO realizes that this kind of vulgar reduction of public affairs to gladiatorial combat is weakening the argument for their own existence?
It was quite evident that Shaidle was completely out of her depth last night, the inane comments she made, and the expression on her face, showed that throughout the show – the thought comes to me that just possibly TVO had her on specifically because they knew that would be the case.
I’ve come around to stageleft’s view on this (actually I always had it, but let my intense dislike for Shaidle cloud my judgment). For me, the only thing I would do differently would be to call for her to be removed from the show.
I would still have called TVO and written them, if only to inform them of Shaidle’s ugly opinions and to request that she be confronted and called on them. And to ensure that she is not merely referred to as a “religious writer”.
Here’s the Stalin/vegetarianism clip.
@balbulican –
“Do you suppose TVO realizes that this kind of vulgar reduction of public affairs to gladiatorial combat is weakening the argument for their own existence? ”
I agree with that sentiment but I doubt that Paiken and his producers see it that way.
In an astonishing outburst of self-pity and wounded bravado, Shaidle actually WROTE something today on her blog. (She only does that when she’s upset – usually it’s either self promotion, or links with minimal commentary to other people’s turdlets).
It’s a pretty good ride through the House of Horrors that is her “worldview”, with some interesting new insights – apparently she is unable to distinguish between:
a) An actual country, with a single government, ruler and army, that decides as a state policy to go to war (e.g., Japan);
b) a decentralized, widely dispersed, international group of religions (e.g., Islam); and
c) a terrorist movement.
But that’s fine: if you’ve seen or read any of last night’s TVO material, you’re already aware of her tenuous grip on history, politics, and analysis more complex than “I Hate Jamaicans”.
What struck me in the latter part of her tirade was the following blurt of self-pity:
It was an interesting quote for two reasons: the accuracy of her self-description, and her suggestion that others “don’t often extend [her] the same courtesy”.
Nonsense. I think most of us absolutely, unreservedly and perpetually grant her the right to annoying, rude, ill-informed, provocative writing on her blog. Heck, I’d even add manipulative, dishonest and polemical to the list of the permissible. However, We also retain the right to mock, debunk, deride, and otherwise respond appropriately to the the aforementioned annoying, rude, ill-informed, provocative, dishonest, manipulative writing.
And heck, we’ll go her one better. We’ll actually let her respond, unedited, and uncensored – a courtesy that Ms. “Give Me Freedom Of Expression Or Give Me a Pink Pistol” fails to extend to those who disagree with her.
Shiadle preformed wonderfully last night and she demonstrated to a large audience what type of person who gets their moral and ethical standards from religion are like. In short, she was childish and completely stupid.
If Obama is a Marxist Prof, then the Chinese are Free Market Capitalists according to her own logic. What a dumb cvnt she is and she clear displayed her ignorance to world last night.
TVO also sited her blog as Fiver Feet of Fury, so hopefully more people will look her up and see what an ugly, vile, hate filled creature that she is.
@balbulican –
All that she left out was the usual hand extended for money “to carry on the fight”.
Whooee! Paiken’s blog’s got 46 comments. Some of Shaidle’s champions are not only supporting her right to a platform for these ideas but they’re actually providing “rationale” for Shaidle’s Islamo-hate. Seems like some people think she’s got good reasons to hate everybuddy like she does.
JB
Not much use for the profane/insane Shaidle’s of the world but gotta love how she recognizes this as on opportunity for folk to ring her donate button…about as subtle as a cudgel on a melon.
@Balb
“It was an interesting quote for two reasons: the accuracy of her self-description, and her suggestion that others “don’t often extend [her] the same courtesy”.” Ha! Thamks for the smile.
@SL: nice!
@balbulican – the poor dear doesn’t seem to be able to wrap her head around the simple idea that if you hang your thoughts, ideas, and personal bias out on the cloths line of the Internet someone is going to take exception to them…. that’s neither the persecution nor the suppression she likes to advertise it as – but hey, she’s gotta make a living off of something.
Re Kathy’s unintentional self-description of herself… It advances a theory of mine that sometimes as writers, what we write is smarter and more true than we ever intended or thought.
In what way are the more typical CBC/TVO panelists (i.e. big L and C political insiders and lobbyists promoting themselves, their businesses and their politics) the cut above Kathy Shaidle that they seem to think they are? This is what I find so compelling – that they see themselves as the arbiters of public interest and that so many bloggers who identify themselves as progressives are in lockstep with them. They scare me – not Kathy Shaidle, who is, afterall, just stating her beliefs.
“In what way are the more typical CBC/TVO panelists (i.e. big L and C political insiders and lobbyists promoting themselves, their businesses and their politics) the cut above Kathy Shaidle that they seem to think they are?”
The question, as posed, is kind of impossible to answer. But in the particular case under discussion, the panelist were a cut above Kathy Shaidle because they didn’t make appallingly stupid observations, or use embarassingly flawed non-logic to make their points.
“They scare me – not Kathy Shaidle, who is, afterall, just stating her beliefs.”
I guess you’ve read the quotes from Shaidle compiled by Kinsella, et al. Her “beliefs” – about blacks, Muslims, immigrants, orientals, First Nations – are appalling. Sorry, I can’t see her as a victim here. I am delighted that she got to appear, and delighted that she fell on her face. Does that make me a – sob – bad person?
Interesting take on my post. Very righteous. But I happen to feel the same way about Kathy Shaidle, her beliefs are indeed appalling, nor is she a victim. She’s one of the lucky few allowed to air them on public television, in fact. But I stand by Internet mobs (and this particular one is very pot/kettle in my opinion) scaring me a lot more than Kathy Shaidle does. To each his own fears, I guess. It’s just that I doubt Warren Kinsella agrees with me on much, either.
You did note that this corner of the “internet mob” endorsed her right to appear, as well as her right to say whatever she wants, without censorship?
Oh yes. I recognize you as a fellow traveller in many ways. Not that I (Feminist, lefty, woman) come anywhere close to your tolerance for free speech.
Still, I’m working on it. Defending Shaidle’s right to appear on public television is pretty minor stuff, but I’m pretty minor stuff, too, and offensive to somebody, I’m sure.
And, as we all know, no one enjoys being offended more than the offended.
I guess I’m confused about what we’re disagreeing about.
I thought you implied I was claiming she was a victim of some kind. Having said that, it’s telling that I had to qualify my support for her “right” to appear on public television (and it becomes a right when some censorious types decide it isn’t, I think) by agreeing “she’s odious, but…”. In a perfect world, defending the right to freedom of speech shouldn’t require such qualification.
Further, I think the campaign you refer to in your entry was particularly offensive in that it consisted of self-appointed arbiters of acceptable opinion deciding she shouldn’t be availed of the opportunity to earn a living BECAUSE of her (yes, odious) views – pretty much regardless of the venue, topic for discussion, etc. (And I can’t help but wonder how one gets out of purgatory with the offended arbiters of acceptable commentary – apologize to them?)
Interestingly, the same Net Nannies that go after her sweeping (yes, odious – see above) anti-Muslim-Aboriginal-Chinese views, have never once pointed out her equally sweeping sexism. To borrow a tactic frequently used by that sort – I guess they agree with her views on women? I mean, they haven’t said they don’t…
“I think the campaign you refer to in your entry was particularly offensive in that it consisted of self-appointed arbiters of acceptable opinion deciding she shouldn’t be availed of the opportunity to earn a living BECAUSE of her (yes, odious) views.”
Like I said, I’m trying to figure out where you think we disagree.
We don’t. I just like posting comments clarifying previously posted comments. It helps me in my understanding of my own arguments.
I must try that. Maybe then I’d understand what I’m talking abouit.