Kudos to Lewis for not giving this neocon a free pass. It's fine to live your life as you please, but NOT (a) solely to offend over a billion Muslims (b) to lend support to the American Enterprise Institute, for crying out loud. Seriously, that stuff about anyone in America can succeed? Where did she learn these cliches, as Lewis put it? Probably she doesn't give a damn about healthcare, which is partly why she's become a poster girl for the extreme right.
Posted by: B.B. | Jul 19, 2007 8:15:08 PM
Once again, Avi Lewis comes off as smug and biased. I don't care who you're interviewing, but don't do it like that. In the mirror dividing right from left, Lewis is Bill O'Reilly's reflection. By the way, she's dead on about islamophobia. There's a lot of anti-arab racism, but calling it islamophobia only obscures the problem.
Posted by: Noname | Jul 19, 2007 10:44:08 PM
The ability to criticize without fear of reprisal is something only available in a democracy. To condemn a democracy as bad because it isn't perfect is to cut off your nose to spite your face. I challenge anyone who feels sympathy for Islamic cause to go and live in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Lexcen | Jul 20, 2007 4:58:59 AM
Once again, readers at 3QD give the standard liberal response to this sort of thing. Comparing Avi Lewis to O'Reilly is ridiculous. For the sake of sounding even-handed, Noname is arguing that a dangerous, obnoxious bully with fascistic tendencies that screams "shut up!" to those he disagrees with is equal to an interviewer who shows his disagreement in a clear but polite way, in the best tradition of journalism. As for Lexcen's obvious point, it's followed by a pointless challenge that obscures the fact that the democracy (or aristo-plutocracy, to be more accurate) he's mentioning has been and is currently bankrolling and protecting the Islamic regime in Saudi Arabia , thus impeding the possibility of a truly democratic movement emerging in that country, for the sake of its "energy security".
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 20, 2007 7:39:01 AM
Pepito, I can only refer you back to the video. I have no problem imagining O'Reilly asking such a condescending question: "do they have a school where they teach you these secular progressive cliches?"
Posted by: Noname | Jul 20, 2007 1:30:18 PM
Noname, I also have no problem imagining O'Reilly and Avi Lewis having the same thing for breakfast or brushing their teeth with the same brand of toothpaste. What makes O'Reilly biased is not as much his condescending tone as his willingness to obscure facts that don't support his position while loudly overstating the case for his pet causes.
The question you're pointing out might sound condescending, but "anyone in America can succeed" is, as a matter of fact, one of the oldest and most common cliches in the U.S. Taking a person to task for spouting what is clearly a cliche is hardly a symptom of 'O'Reillyism'.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 20, 2007 2:14:05 PM
Fine, Pepito. Let's say he's the leftie Tucker Carlson then, if you won't accept O'Reilly. Never mind your useless point about toothpaste (allow me to draw a caricature for you "Sure, I could imagine both Hitler and Stalin ordering massacres. But I could also imagine them breathing air. For that matter, I could imagine Gandhi breathing air just as easily. So there's no reason to compare Hitler and Mussolini") So how about Tucker? It's not hard to imagine Tucker Carlson sarcastically denigrating something by calling it "delightful". Or let's drop all comparisons and just let Avi Lewis stand alone as the smug, condescending, biased, self-righteous partisan that he is. If you live in Canada, you know Lewis, but you probably also know Steve Paikin. Try and imagine Paikin conducting an interview like this, and then realize the difference between a good journalist and a hack.
Posted by: Noname | Jul 20, 2007 4:57:29 PM
O'Reilly and Lewis are but only two of the many in this delightful and growing parade of arrogant and prissy pseudo journalists. Objectivity struggles to bring in the ratings and here we are, stuck with ‘morally grounded’ (left or right – never the middle) polazing figures in the press who eschew real debate on the set, but effortlessly manage to set fire to blogs, message boards, and the dinner table. The formula is simple; Take a side. Attack the other with indignant moral logic. Use statements rather than questions to control the flow of dialogue. Watch the ratings soar. Unfortunately for Lewis, he’s in Canada, so there’s no telling if this brand of journalism will resonate.
Thanks to 3QD for reminding me why I don’t watch TV.
By the way, when was the last time an abortion doctor was shot?
Posted by: JKS | Jul 20, 2007 9:39:51 PM
JKS, I'm not sure when the most recent abortionist shooting was, but Lewis should make note of the fact that they also occur in Canada. You have to love the way he phrased it: "they shoot abortion doctors there", i.e. "they [Americans] shoot abortion doctors". So let me see if I get this straight... crude generalizations about Americans are OK, but generalizations about muslims are not, even if they're accurate generalizations concerning universally accepted points of muslim doctrine. Right. Ok. Thanks Avi.
Posted by: Noname | Jul 20, 2007 9:55:45 PM
Noname:
There's nothing useless about my analogy. I certainly don't think either O'Reilly or Tucker Carlson are comparable to Lewis. I don't see anything wrong in a journalist having a political stance and not practicing that brand of journalism you seem to favor, that, although seemingly high-brow, tends to treat all arguments, ridiculous or not, as if they were equally respectable. Ayan Hirsi Ali spouted a few cliches and he didn't let her get away with it. That's good enough for me. People talking in soundbites offend my intelligence, and I hope they offend yours as well.
As an aside, English is not my first language, but it seems evident to me that when Lewis said "they shoot abortion doctors there", the limitations of English grammar make it difficult start the sentence with a pronoun other than "they" (you don't have that problem in Spanish or Italian, for instance). And it seems kind of funny and strange to me that a factual assertion (yes, "they" sometimes shoot abortion doctors here) might bother you so much.
It is clear that there's really no parallel between a country following Islamic law to the t and a country whose laws are very loosely based on what some call "Christian heritage". But Lewis point stands: there is an increasing amount of people in the U.S. who would want nothing more than to turn it into a theocracy, ruled by obsolete biblical law. Some of those people have a strong influence in the current U.S. neocon administration (you just have to look at the unqualified support for Israel in the U.S. executive and legislative branches to realize that their biblical viewpoint might be an important factor).
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 21, 2007 12:43:31 PM
As I said before, I see nothing wrong with taking sides and making a choice (and it's obvious that sitting on the fence and taking no sides also implies a choice, with its concomitant political stances), as long as it is done honestly, something either O'Reilly or Carson very rarely do.
I saw Lewis taking to task Jennifer McCoy from the Carter Center in an interview about Hugo Chavez's government. When McCoy said that the main beneficial effect of the Chavez administration in Venezuela was that he has "brought hope to the poor", he correctly pointed out that people don't eat hope and proceeded to enumerate the real benefits (subsidized food, education, healthcare) that have been made available to Venezuela. To me that's real journalism. Unlike the careful cherry-picking of facts done by the mainstream media in order to manipulate opinion, he decided to present all facts available while unafraid of showing that he does have a particular viewpoint on the subject.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 21, 2007 12:55:52 PM
We can count this as the first critical interview of Hirsi Ali.
Posted by: Tim | Jul 22, 2007 11:12:22 PM
I've seen other Left-leaning interviewers try to take an adversarial stance against Hirsi Ali, but since that entails sticking up for Islam against a woman who's had her genitals mutilated it doesn't especially come off well. Colbert tried to make an equivalence between Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, but was satisfied with getting Ali to extol individual freedom and choie over religious doctrine.
But I think it is fair to say that Avi Lewis has been the first person to bravely voice the official stance of the Left; that is, that the recent alliance between neo-Marxists and Islamic extremist militants is more important than whatever rhetoric they've voiced in the past regarding women's rights, freedom from religious and free speech. He considers his virulent hatred of America as far more important than any objective assessment of Islam, regardless of perspective, and for that he certainly proves his loyalty to the Left in spades.
Posted by: DrCruel | Jul 26, 2007 8:33:03 PM
Post a comment
3QD Politics Prize
Donate to Todd Shea
More info about Todd Shea and his work here on 3QD.
"I couldn't tear myself
away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on
this superb site."—Steven
Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.
"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard
Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.
"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.
Comments
Kudos to Lewis for not giving this neocon a free pass. It's fine to live your life as you please, but NOT (a) solely to offend over a billion Muslims (b) to lend support to the American Enterprise Institute, for crying out loud. Seriously, that stuff about anyone in America can succeed? Where did she learn these cliches, as Lewis put it? Probably she doesn't give a damn about healthcare, which is partly why she's become a poster girl for the extreme right.
Posted by: B.B. | Jul 19, 2007 8:15:08 PM
Once again, Avi Lewis comes off as smug and biased. I don't care who you're interviewing, but don't do it like that. In the mirror dividing right from left, Lewis is Bill O'Reilly's reflection. By the way, she's dead on about islamophobia. There's a lot of anti-arab racism, but calling it islamophobia only obscures the problem.
Posted by: Noname | Jul 19, 2007 10:44:08 PM
The ability to criticize without fear of reprisal is something only available in a democracy. To condemn a democracy as bad because it isn't perfect is to cut off your nose to spite your face. I challenge anyone who feels sympathy for Islamic cause to go and live in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Lexcen | Jul 20, 2007 4:58:59 AM
Once again, readers at 3QD give the standard liberal response to this sort of thing. Comparing Avi Lewis to O'Reilly is ridiculous. For the sake of sounding even-handed, Noname is arguing that a dangerous, obnoxious bully with fascistic tendencies that screams "shut up!" to those he disagrees with is equal to an interviewer who shows his disagreement in a clear but polite way, in the best tradition of journalism. As for Lexcen's obvious point, it's followed by a pointless challenge that obscures the fact that the democracy (or aristo-plutocracy, to be more accurate) he's mentioning has been and is currently bankrolling and protecting the Islamic regime in Saudi Arabia , thus impeding the possibility of a truly democratic movement emerging in that country, for the sake of its "energy security".
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 20, 2007 7:39:01 AM
Pepito, I can only refer you back to the video. I have no problem imagining O'Reilly asking such a condescending question: "do they have a school where they teach you these secular progressive cliches?"
Posted by: Noname | Jul 20, 2007 1:30:18 PM
Noname, I also have no problem imagining O'Reilly and Avi Lewis having the same thing for breakfast or brushing their teeth with the same brand of toothpaste. What makes O'Reilly biased is not as much his condescending tone as his willingness to obscure facts that don't support his position while loudly overstating the case for his pet causes.
The question you're pointing out might sound condescending, but "anyone in America can succeed" is, as a matter of fact, one of the oldest and most common cliches in the U.S. Taking a person to task for spouting what is clearly a cliche is hardly a symptom of 'O'Reillyism'.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 20, 2007 2:14:05 PM
Fine, Pepito. Let's say he's the leftie Tucker Carlson then, if you won't accept O'Reilly. Never mind your useless point about toothpaste (allow me to draw a caricature for you "Sure, I could imagine both Hitler and Stalin ordering massacres. But I could also imagine them breathing air. For that matter, I could imagine Gandhi breathing air just as easily. So there's no reason to compare Hitler and Mussolini") So how about Tucker? It's not hard to imagine Tucker Carlson sarcastically denigrating something by calling it "delightful". Or let's drop all comparisons and just let Avi Lewis stand alone as the smug, condescending, biased, self-righteous partisan that he is. If you live in Canada, you know Lewis, but you probably also know Steve Paikin. Try and imagine Paikin conducting an interview like this, and then realize the difference between a good journalist and a hack.
Posted by: Noname | Jul 20, 2007 4:57:29 PM
O'Reilly and Lewis are but only two of the many in this delightful and growing parade of arrogant and prissy pseudo journalists. Objectivity struggles to bring in the ratings and here we are, stuck with ‘morally grounded’ (left or right – never the middle) polazing figures in the press who eschew real debate on the set, but effortlessly manage to set fire to blogs, message boards, and the dinner table. The formula is simple; Take a side. Attack the other with indignant moral logic. Use statements rather than questions to control the flow of dialogue. Watch the ratings soar. Unfortunately for Lewis, he’s in Canada, so there’s no telling if this brand of journalism will resonate.
Thanks to 3QD for reminding me why I don’t watch TV.
By the way, when was the last time an abortion doctor was shot?
Posted by: JKS | Jul 20, 2007 9:39:51 PM
JKS, I'm not sure when the most recent abortionist shooting was, but Lewis should make note of the fact that they also occur in Canada. You have to love the way he phrased it: "they shoot abortion doctors there", i.e. "they [Americans] shoot abortion doctors". So let me see if I get this straight... crude generalizations about Americans are OK, but generalizations about muslims are not, even if they're accurate generalizations concerning universally accepted points of muslim doctrine. Right. Ok. Thanks Avi.
Posted by: Noname | Jul 20, 2007 9:55:45 PM
Noname:
There's nothing useless about my analogy. I certainly don't think either O'Reilly or Tucker Carlson are comparable to Lewis. I don't see anything wrong in a journalist having a political stance and not practicing that brand of journalism you seem to favor, that, although seemingly high-brow, tends to treat all arguments, ridiculous or not, as if they were equally respectable. Ayan Hirsi Ali spouted a few cliches and he didn't let her get away with it. That's good enough for me. People talking in soundbites offend my intelligence, and I hope they offend yours as well.
As an aside, English is not my first language, but it seems evident to me that when Lewis said "they shoot abortion doctors there", the limitations of English grammar make it difficult start the sentence with a pronoun other than "they" (you don't have that problem in Spanish or Italian, for instance). And it seems kind of funny and strange to me that a factual assertion (yes, "they" sometimes shoot abortion doctors here) might bother you so much.
It is clear that there's really no parallel between a country following Islamic law to the t and a country whose laws are very loosely based on what some call "Christian heritage". But Lewis point stands: there is an increasing amount of people in the U.S. who would want nothing more than to turn it into a theocracy, ruled by obsolete biblical law. Some of those people have a strong influence in the current U.S. neocon administration (you just have to look at the unqualified support for Israel in the U.S. executive and legislative branches to realize that their biblical viewpoint might be an important factor).
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 21, 2007 12:43:31 PM
As I said before, I see nothing wrong with taking sides and making a choice (and it's obvious that sitting on the fence and taking no sides also implies a choice, with its concomitant political stances), as long as it is done honestly, something either O'Reilly or Carson very rarely do.
I saw Lewis taking to task Jennifer McCoy from the Carter Center in an interview about Hugo Chavez's government. When McCoy said that the main beneficial effect of the Chavez administration in Venezuela was that he has "brought hope to the poor", he correctly pointed out that people don't eat hope and proceeded to enumerate the real benefits (subsidized food, education, healthcare) that have been made available to Venezuela. To me that's real journalism. Unlike the careful cherry-picking of facts done by the mainstream media in order to manipulate opinion, he decided to present all facts available while unafraid of showing that he does have a particular viewpoint on the subject.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 21, 2007 12:55:52 PM
We can count this as the first critical interview of Hirsi Ali.
Posted by: Tim | Jul 22, 2007 11:12:22 PM
I've seen other Left-leaning interviewers try to take an adversarial stance against Hirsi Ali, but since that entails sticking up for Islam against a woman who's had her genitals mutilated it doesn't especially come off well. Colbert tried to make an equivalence between Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, but was satisfied with getting Ali to extol individual freedom and choie over religious doctrine.
But I think it is fair to say that Avi Lewis has been the first person to bravely voice the official stance of the Left; that is, that the recent alliance between neo-Marxists and Islamic extremist militants is more important than whatever rhetoric they've voiced in the past regarding women's rights, freedom from religious and free speech. He considers his virulent hatred of America as far more important than any objective assessment of Islam, regardless of perspective, and for that he certainly proves his loyalty to the Left in spades.
Posted by: DrCruel | Jul 26, 2007 8:33:03 PM
Post a comment