On the facts, I think Steyn is correct: a government agency should not be telling a writer or a magazine what to write, or what not to write. If someone finds a piece of writing offensive, then they should write their own stuff. Prefer TV? There's You Tube. Radio? Blog Talk.
The students have it that Maclean's is playing unfairly because they won't publish an article by a writer of the students' choosing. But the students' rules are unfair in the extreme: the editors of Maclean's will not be allowed to edit the piece in any way beyond a spellcheck. What's more, if Maclean's does not run the piece, then the students vow to take them to the government's Human Right Commissions who will force the magazine to print it.
That stinks. Anyone who doesn't see that it stinks is a fool. Think about the precedent that would set: print this, or else the government will get involved, and they'll tell you to print it.
One thing that struck me about last night's debate was how naive the students are. When one of them said Maclean's has a huge readership, and Steyn told them that they have a website, the students scoffed. Their point is, Maclean's is a magazine and a website doesn't hold up, so Maclean's must publish the piece.
Well, that's not the way the publishing world works. I wish it did. I would like nothing better than to tell editors that they must run a piece of my writing. But those aren't the rules I was raised on. I was brought up to believe that you have to write something worthy of printing in order to find it in a magazine, and even then, you might not get between the covers.
Editors worry about newsworthiness, and the bottom line. Now and then they even care about the quality of writing. They also worry about their reputations. Maclean's might have a big readership now, but imagine that readership if people knew that Maclean's was a mouthpiece for special interest groups. An unedited opinion piece is not an article, it's an advertisement.
Another thing that struck me is that these students weren't true "students" from the old days. All right, they're law students, so that makes them automatically suspicious. But still, whatever happened to not ratting on anybody? "Print this or I'll tell teacher." Lame. Their legal bills would have been better spent on hiring a name writer, having them write a piece, and submitting it to Maclean's. The mag would have printed it, of that I am pretty sure: Mark Steyn (name writer) against so-and-so (name writer). Now it's gone too far. The students have painted Maclean's into a corner, and there's nothing the magazine can do but say no to anything with the students' fingerprints on it.
The students have elevated the maxim of human rights to its logical conclusion: all the world's a court, and those of us in it merely defendants. Give this man a job, or I'll tell the government. Give this lady wheelchair access, or I'll tell the government. Don't talk mean to minorities, or I'll tell the government. Be nice to women, or I'll tell the government. Print this article, or I'll tell the government.
We're teaching our kids to become sissies and tattle-tales. I don't know what kind of impact that's going to have later on in life, but it's got to have some ramifications. I don't think they'll be good ones.
I was looking at Mark Steyn's blog, and he had this to say in a post-game write up:
We didn't go for dinner, but we did have a relatively pleasant conversation after the broadcast that I thought was much more productive than the show. Khurrum was a bit chippy but the two ladies, Muneeza Sheikh and Naseem Mithoowani, are rather cute, even when they're damning me as a racist and hater. (Years ago, the BBC used to keep putting me up against humourless Marxist feminists only to find that on air I'd go all sweet on them and just make goo-goo eyes.) One confessed to finding me "mildly funny", which I took as a tremendous compliment until she remarked that she found "Little Mosque On The Prairie" funnier. Evidently by "mildly funny", she sets the bar down at world-champion limbo level. Heigh-ho.That rings true. I once wrote that all of the people that say they "hate" George Bush don't really hate him. They hate his ideals, but they don't hate the man. Unfortunately, they can't draw that distinction. Over dinner, the people that hate Bush would have a pleasant enough time. I've had drinks with people that I previously despised, only to find that while I don't agree with them, I can still carry on a decent conversation with them across the bar.
I'll bet the students don't hate Steyn now after having met him. They disagree with him, but they don't hate him. I also think it very telling that after meeting someone whom they call Islamophobic, they hang around the set to have a chat. If you truly hated someone and thought they hated you because they're a bigot, would you chat them up and tell them they're mildly funny?
And that's why we don't need the government in our lives, telling us what to write and how behave. We can take care of ourselves, thank you very much.
I know it's hard work, but if you want to write, then write. If you want to meet people on TV and debate them, then work your ass off for a year and get on the program. Lately, I've been reading a lot of people saying that Steyn is a high school drop out and an ex-DJ. That sounds a lot like sour grapes to me. Since when was a high school diploma or any vocational background a prerequisite for writing? I don't know what people think writers do for money until they become full-time writers, but I can assure them it isn't writing. Writing doesn't pay jack until you get syndicated. Until then, being a DJ is as good a job as any.
I think the high-school-drop-out stuff is jealousy, pure and simple. You're not getting published, but Steyn is? Sorry, it means he's a better writer than you, and he's had some luck to go with it. Tough.
If the students had worked as hard on their writing as they have on these complaints, they'd be in print now. They claim that filing these complaints was the only way to get on TV. They said last night, "If we didn't complain, we wouldn't be on this show."
Really? Is this the only option you had, to open the Pandora's Box of government and let the suits fly? Or was this simply the easier, new Canadian way?
Tell us, but do it in writing.
4 comments:
Robert Fulford didn't finish high school either. Think what a success he would be if he had:
Robert Fulford, whose column appears on Tuesdays in the Arts & Life section and on Saturdays on the Op Ed page, has been a journalist since the summer of 1950, when he left high school to work as a sports writer on The Globe and Mail. He has since been a news reporter, literary critic, art critic, movie critic, and editor on a variety of magazines, ranging from Canadian Homes and Gardens to the Canadian Forum. He was the editor of Saturday Night for 19 years, 1968-1987, and has since been a freelance writer. His books include This Was Expo, Best Seat in the House: Memoirs of a Lucky Man, Accidental City: The Transformation of Toronto, and The Triumph of Narrative, the text of the Massey Lectures he delivered on CBC radio. He is an officer of the Order of Canada and a senior fellow of Massey College.
"The students have it that Maclean's is playing unfairly because they won't publish an article by a writer of the students' choosing."
Trudeau and Osgoode taught them that they're entitled to their entitlements. Or that freedom of the press belongs to those who hold a knife against the throat of the press owner.
"They claim that filing these complaints was the only way to get on TV."
And if it weren't for the sex tape, Paris Hilton wouldn't be famous. The end justifies the means.
Sean:
The students' case would seem to be undermined by the fact that other media outlets in Canada have published them.
It's like all the whining down here in the States about 'stifling dissent' -- usually seen, paradoxically, on nationally-televised news programs and on the op-ed pages of our largest newspapers.
This is nothing but a shakedown. I just wish someone among our esteemed commentariat and so-called thinking classes had the stones to call it what it is.
'A' in the classroom, 'D' on the street, as it were . . .
Sean I want to commend you on a well thought out analysis. So much of what passes for eductation today wouldn't have made the grade 45 yr ago+. The last 40 has seen the descent into indoctrination and moulding students into future libleft torch bearers. It used to be that education, (particulary university) was to teach facts, principles of critical thinking (ie the ability to examine to determine validity), and the ability to arrive at reason-able conclusions. Not very many people I talk to these days seem to exhibit that, but your column here does exhibit it. Congrats on the ability to fairly reason, and think.
Post a Comment