|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Arab
group got the rest of the story
DON SELLAR Toronto
Star
November
6, 2004Full credit to broadcaster Michael Coren. With only 26,000 viewers, his cable TV talk show still manages to stir up trouble by the bushel. As the Crossroads Television System says on its website, Coren "refuses to be limited by boundaries and barriers previously considered sacrosanct." So it was on Oct. 19, when Coren presided over a prickly discussion on terrorism that gained international attention and still generates aftershocks. Along the way, two of Coren's guests — one Moslem, the other Jewish — have been roasted and toasted for incendiary comments on the show titled, What Is A Terrorist? In addition, questions of systemic bias in local media reporting have been raised and not answered to the satisfaction of all. The story popped up three days after Coren's show aired, and even then in a National Post editorial, of all places. Continuing a long feud with the Canadian Islamic Congress, the Post excoriated CIC national president Mohamed Elmasry for his "odious pronouncements" on the program. The paper lit into Elmasry for deeming Palestinian attacks against adult Israelis to be acceptable. It quoted him as saying: "They (Israeli adults) are not innocent (because) the total population of Israel is part of the army . . . From 18 on, they are part of the soldiers, even if they have civilian clothes." That lit the bonfire. Next day, news stories about Elmasry's remarks and criticism from Jewish groups and other Muslim organizations began appearing in all the Toronto dailies. In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Elmasry repeated his comments. The story took on a life of its own, with high-powered columnists and letter-writers joining the fray. To Rosie DiManno, Elmasry did "a grave disservice to Canadian Muslims by justifying terrorism against civilians (or even military members in Israel, where service is mandatory)." The Star urged him to resign. In a week, the paper got 149 letters about Elmasry, compared to 112 on pit bulls. The New York Times reported Halton police had opened a hate-crime inquiry. At University of Waterloo, where Elmasry is a computer-engineering prof, the dean called him in for a chat. The CIC called the comments "regrettable and misunderstood." Later, its board rejected Elmasry's profferred resignation. He apologized for his "biggest mistake" in 30 years of public life. This week the controversy widened when Omar Alghabra, president of the Canadian Arab Federation, finally got the videotape. He found that in all the kerfuffle over Elmasry, Toronto media had reported only part of the story. On the same show, panelist Adam Aptowitzer, Ontario chair of the B'nai Brith Institute for International Affairs, had made what Alghabra considered an "equally disturbing comment." To wit: "When Israel uses terror . . . to destroy a home and convince people . . . to be terrified of what the possible consequences are, I'd say that's an acceptable use to terrify somebody." In a letter in Tuesday's Globe about the remark, Alghabra asked: "Where were the media in challenging it? Where were the Jewish organizations and leaders in rejecting that logic? Where was the public outrage and demands for apology or resignation?" The Globe also ran a short news item saying Aptowitzer had apologized. Next day, the Star reported Aptowitzer's resignation on page A3, and repudiation of his comments by B'nai Brith. A contrite Aptowitzer said he "did not intend that it come across that I support the killing of innocent people in any form." After this latest twist, a few Arab and Muslim readers accused Toronto media outlets of a double standard in the reporting of the two gaffes. But Alghabra saw something else. "The national media were complacent when they read the story in The Post and quickly adopted their version instead of investigating it fully and viewing the tape," he told the ombud. He added it would be worse "if a reporter had seen the tape but never picked up on what the B'nai Brith spokesperson said until our organization alluded to it." That would indeed be disturbing. But the ombud found no evidence of such unprofessional conduct at the Star. City editor John Ferri was instrumental in the Star giving the Aptowitzer story good play Wednesday despite an avalanche of U.S. presidential election news. Ferri said the paper pursued the story from the beginning but "we all had egg on our faces," he said. "It was embarrassing for every paper in the city not to get the whole story from the outset." Alghabra said the Arab Federation also has egg on its face. "We commented on Elmasry and took a position without watching the whole tape." I wonder what topic Coren will pick next. He's on a roll, if he can still lure guests. Additional articles by Don Sellar Fair Use NoticeThe above is copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Your Comments canpalnet-ottawa.org |