I saw the Paikin/TVO "debate" tonight.
The law student "complainants" did everything they could to veer away from actually debating Steyn's thesis while at the same time trying to justify what they did as necessary to spur the "fair" debate that they allegedly want.
Paikin leaned on them fairly hard repeatedly attempting to come back to Steyn's book and thesis. It was hopeless. They were fixated on playing the victim of unfair media censorship.
In the end, I had no choice but to conclude that their complaints are more about shutting down the debate altogether. Where there was a scintilla of doubt before, now I have none.
I can now move on and try and discern why that is.
Wow -- just WOW.
That was one incredible hour of television. I tuned in, not really thinking Mark Steyn would be able to force a debate, as he indicated he'd like to do. The TV producers would surely never allow it. But kudos to Steve Paikin -- he actually made it happen! All while keeping his cool and managing to hold his own as moderator. Full props to him for that. If The Agenda were like this every time, I'd tune in more often.
I wished at times that Steyn would also keep his cool more, and not shout and interrupt which made him look rather boorish. But the bottom line is, Steyn doesn't care a whit what the Canadian public thinks of him. The Osgoode gang, though, do care about their carefully-cultivated public image. They clearly wanted to be seen as the Voices of Reason, and it was simply amazing to watch what they had intended to be a perfect stage-managed appearance go up in flames: watch them grow increasingly flustered and testy, throw hateful glares Steyn's way, try to shout him down. Paikin questioned them, politely but relentlessly, and Steyn nettled them, until their masks slipped at last and their true colours showed. Three deeply insecure, immature, and naive young law students who really should know better.
The complainants' reiteration that they only wanted the "right to respond" was answered by Paikin at the beginning of the program because they were allowed to respond on TV and in other media if they had so chosen. This message did not seem to get through, so we might conclude that they did not so much want to respond to the article as to negate it and all the other 21 articles they mentioned that had appeared in the magazine.
Posted at 2008-05-06 20:10:01 [PermaLink]I just finished watching the program (the 11 pm repeat) and concur with the above. Paikin is an excellent moderator and earned his keep tonight. Sock pupets is an appropriate term - Elmasry was invited but refused to attend. One comment by Khurrum Awan pretty much summed up their outlook - Awan equated Oriana Fallaci with Ernst Zundel. 'Nuff said.
Posted at 2008-05-06 22:04:54 [PermaLink]