Wednesday, March 25, 2009

CMAJ Editor-in-Chief Responds

 
 CMAJ Editor-in-Chief Responds
March 25, 2009
 
 
Dear HonestReporting Canada subscriber,

In a recent HonestReporting Canada alert dated March 18, we questioned why the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) would insert anti-Israel rhetoric into a "neutral" medical journal. We felt that by allowing crude anti-Israel propaganda to masquerade on its pages as legitimate discourse, the CMAJ failed to live up to its mission statement and instead promoted a grossly distorted picture of the Gaza health care system and the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas.

Thanks to your many emails, the CMAJ has acknowledged that they could have been more sensitive by balancing their reports rather than publishing two alone on the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, the Journal has said that it will continue to publish letters on the matter, while inviting submissions for perspectives relating the health consequences of war in Israel and on Israelis.

Writing on the HonestReporting Canada website yesterday, CMAJ Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Paul Hebert stated the following:

I am writing in response to your posting concerning 2 articles published in the March 17 issue of CMAJ and the subsequent emails we have received.

We did not intend to take a position on the conflict in Gaza. We published the articles to provide a perspective on the health-related and health infrastructure consequences of war which is within our purview as a medical journal. We are sorry if this made it seem like we were taking sides in the conflict. It was certainly not intended.

As we have stated in a response on our website, cmaj.ca, we welcome submissions that provide perspectives on the health effects of conflict in regions around the world including Israel, from people such as physicians who are treating wounded.

In a note regarding the "health impacts of war' posted on the CMAJ website, Dr. Hebert acknowledged that:

Most letter writers seemed aggrieved that the articles failed to condemn the Palestinians and Hamas for their actions prior to the commencement of Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" military campaign on Dec. 27, 2008.

Similarly, most letters appeared to be the product of a campaign launched by a group called "HonestReporting Canada," which condemned the articles and asked its members to contact CMAJ and express their dissatisfaction.

In retrospect, publishing 2 articles on a single subject in one issue, albeit and industry norm, may have somehow made it appear to some readers that CMAJ was taking an editorial position on the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is certainly not the case. For those who would like to see the health effects better described for people in Israel, we invite submissions on the health-related consequences of war, whether in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. As of 4:30 p.m. Mar. 24, 2009, CMAJ has received over 250 letters in response to the 2 articles, which we will continue to post. As always, we welcome your insight, and invite you to continue articulating your opinions.

While Dr. Hebert's reply did not answer the many deficiencies we pointed out, nor did he acknowledge how these reports managed to get through peer review, we do credit the CMAJ for recognizing that their coverage was open to the appearance of bias as it seemed that the Journal was "taking sides in the conflict." Notwithstanding, in light of the seriousness of this situation and in order for the CMAJ to maintain its credibility, HonestReporting Canada calls upon the Journal to implement stricter quality control protocols to ensure that their editorial policies are followed and respected.

HonestReporting Canada would also like to commend its many subscribers for their prompt action. As of today, the CMAJ has published a remarkable 49 letters to its website (see here and here) which condemned the publication of over-simplified, misleading, and incomplete views of the health care situation in the Gaza Strip, which had blamed Israel alone for all of the territory's ills.

How You Can Make A Difference:

If
you would like to take Dr. Hebert up on his offer to better describe the health effects on Israelis in the wake of the recent war or to detail the very real physical and psychological trauma prompted by years of Hamas rocket and other terrorist attacks on Israelis, please contact the CMAJ at 1-800 663-7336 x 2295 or pubs@cmaj.ca to express your interest in submitting a formal manuscript.

     
 
 
   
 
 
Toronto Office: P.O. Box 6, Station Q Toronto, Ontario M4T 2L7
Montreal Office: P.O. Box 42508, Succursale Snowdon Montreal, Quebec H3W 3H7
Office: (416) 915-9157 E-mail: info@honestreporting.ca Web: www.honestreporting.ca

You are currently subscribed to honestreportingcanada as: pressing4truth.canada@blogger.com
To unsubscribe click here
or send a blank email to leave-9683007-30846861.70055780e4c7785a46ecfd4be95feb9c@pr1.netatlantic.com

Monday, March 9, 2009

Correcting Canadian Columnists' Canards

Correcting Canadian Columnists' Canards

March 9, 2009

By: Mike Fegelman

Dear HonestReporting Canada subscriber:                                                     

Syndicated columnists are paid to put forward highly opinionated and sometimes controversial points of view. In contrast to reporters these pundits are not neutral. Their commentaries are printed in various Canadian newspapers to reflect a diverse range of opinion, to add to the marketplace of ideas, and to articulate the various shades of gray on any given subject, especially one as polarized as the Middle East.

While columnists are entitled to their opinions, their own personal politics cannot supersede adherence to strict standards of ethical, accurate, and honest journalism. A columnist who gives expert opinion must also base it on accurate information – anything short of that requires swift corrections.

Haroon Siddiqui Strikes Again

Toronto Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui (well known for his criticisms of Israel) recently claimed in a column he authored on March 1 that Israeli forces had carried out an "attack on a UN-run school."

Contrary to this statement, Israel never attacked the UN-run school. An investigative report by the Globe & Mail's Patrick Martin confirmed underreported Israeli accounts that the IDF accurately returned fire to the location from which it was being shelled by Hamas terrorists who were located across the street from the school.

HonestReporting Canada brought this matter to the attention of Toronto Star editors who commendably acknowledged that Mr. Siddiqui's statement could have been written in a clearer manner. On March 4 the Star promptly issued the following clarification to remedy Mr. Siddiqui's error:

Simpson Skews BBC Poll

Writing in the Globe and Mail on February 9, columnist Jeffrey Simpson (pictured) commented on a recently released BBC World Service Poll which judged the popularity (or lack thereof) of various countries around the World.

In reference to Israel Mr. Simpson wrote:

"Israelis likely do not care and Iranians probably do not know, but theirs are two of the least popular countries in the world. Throw Pakistan into the mix, and the annual BBC World Service poll gives us three of the world's least popular countries." 

"Israelis are accustomed to believing that most of the world is against them, so the poll's result will hardly surprise them. To be precise, the poll asked respondents in 21 countries whether other countries were playing a "positive" or "negative" role in the world. Only 21 per cent of respondents said Israel played a positive role; 71 per cent said it played a negative one. In only one country – the United States – did Israel receive a slightly positive rating."

Contrary to this statement, only "51 per cent" of those polled in the BBC's World Service Poll indicated that Israel played a "negative role" not 71 per cent. Mr Simpson was off by a whopping 20% margin.

In light of this information, we asked Globe and Mail editors to correct Mr. Simpson's factual error. On February 11, the Globe issued the following correction to set the record straight:

Rick Salutin Peddles "Israel Apartheid Week's" 4 Myths

Keeping with the Globe & Mail, columnist Rick Salutin's March 5 column peddled four of the big myths promulgated by "Israel Apartheid Week" organizers. HonestReporting editor Pesach Benson fisked Salutin's polemic:

Myth: The "apartheid" label stems from the security fence. Salutin writes:

"Cabinet minister Jason Kenney calls Israel Apartheid Week "a systematic effort to delegitimize the democratic homeland of the Jewish people" by linking it to racism, a line virtually mouthed by Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff. That is way too cute. Any "settler state," such as Canada, which took someone else's land, can be seen as illegitimate. But it's an abstract point. "Apartheid" became widely used in this context only when Israel began building what came to be called an apartheid wall, looming over Palestinians, sequestering more land, cutting them off from each other."

Fact: The apartheid label was generated by the rabid participants of the 2001 Durban conference, nearly a whole year before Israel decided to build its security fence.

Myth: The security fence divides the West Bank into "Bantustans." According to Salutin:

"The usage grew as Israel expanded settlements, built Israeli-only roads and set up checkpoints so Palestinians would at best be left with "Bantustans," such as those that apartheid South Africa offered blacks, rather than a true state of their own."

Fact: The fence, checkpoints and roads are for Israel's security, not to segregate people. In 2007, Islamic Jihad chief Ramadan Shalah confirmed as much to Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV that the Israel's security measures effectively thwarts terror attacks.

Myth: Jewish students shouldn't be overly concerned by the campus debate's invective. Salutin says:

"Most of the specifics come down to shouts at protests. As in: "Cries of 'Die, Jew' and 'Get the hell off campus' were heard." The Canadian Jewish Congress's Bernie Farber says he's "never" seen it this bad "on the streets of Toronto and university campuses." Well, I spend lots of time on streets in Toronto and it doesn't look like Kristallnacht to me. But wait, that's glib. It's these images that scare my friends: They evoke Nazi Germany. I know that.

But Nazi Germany wasn't about name-calling and group hate. Those will persist, perhaps always. The Holocaust occurred largely because anti-Semitism was historically rooted and respectable there: religiously, socially, intellectually, politically. Writers and politicians were proudly anti-Semitic. Here, anti-Semitism is unacceptable in all those ways. This whole debate proves it. We should be glad for that, and keep it in perspective."
 

Fact: The Jewish students of 1930s Germany received similar reassurances by people no less well-meaning or enlightened than Salutin. See more sober reactions from McGill's Professor Gil Troy and Israeli Bedouin diplomat Ishmael Khaldi.

Myth: Hamas can accommodate the existence of Israel. According to Salutin:

"Even Hamas has a (nuanced) position on living with Israel. You can look it up."

Fact: Okay, I looked up the Hamas charter. Here's what Salutin confuses for "nuance." According to the charter: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory) . . .  [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. . . There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad."

Moreover, on closer look, the charter notes early on Hamas' identification with the Muslim Brotherhood, an international movement with branches in Egypt, Jordan, even the US, and UK. International movements like the Muslim Brotherhood don't have a track record for the kind of nuance Salutin puts his faith in.

How You Can Make A Difference

While Mr. Salutin is entitled to fair comment, he is not immune from receiving legitimate criticism for his comments.

Please send your thoughts to the Globe and Mail by pointing out one of the aforementioned myths and refer to Mr. Salutin's March 5th op-ed entitled "Israel, Apartheid, anti-Semites". Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@globeandmail.com

Please remember to include your name, address and daytime telephone number to ensure your chance for publication on the letters page.
 

 

HonestReporting.ca

To support our continued efforts to hold the Canadian news media accountable for their reporting on Israel, please donate here today. Through your donations, you can help ensure that Canadian journalists are held to the highest standards of "Honest Reporting."

Or send a cheque to:

HonestReporting Canada

P.O. Box 6, Station Q, Toronto, Ontario M4T 2L7

(416) 915-9157

Thank you for your ongoing commitment to fair and accurate
media coverage of Israel and the Middle East

 


You are currently subscribed to honestreportingcanada as: pressing4truth.canada@blogger.com
To unsubscribe click here
or send a blank email to leave-9527229-30846861.70055780e4c7785a46ecfd4be95feb9c@pr1.netatlantic.com

Thursday, March 5, 2009

CBC Bans Anti-Semitic Comments and Commentators

CBC Bans Anti-Semitic Comments and Commentators

March 5, 2009

A guest article by Brian Henry (An earlier version of this piece appeared in the March 3, 2009 edition of the Jewish Tribune)

Until recently, the CBC was one of Canada's largest publishers of anti-Semitic material and, in some ways, still is. The problem wasn't the CBC reporters; it was the audience, posting anti-Semitic attacks on the CBC web site.

Courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer, anti-Semites could reach far more people by posting on CBC.ca than through the wacko sites that specialize in Jew-hatred. Worse, they reached a mainstream audience, not just their fellow bigots.

The anti-Semitic attacks reached a crescendo during Israel's recent war with Hamas, but this problem of Jew-haters using the CBC as their message board stretches back for years.

Last April, I wrote about the anti-Semitic comments that greeted a CBC.ca story about Prime Minister Stephen Harper laying a wreath at Auschwitz. A reader calling himself 'Baltzera' asked which would be more entertaining, "a day pass to Disney's theme park or Dachau?"

Similar filth greeted a story about B'nai Brith's 2007 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents in Canada, with one reader asserting that Jews are "despised for all the right reasons here and globally."

Back in 2004, writing in the Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente noted the problem with anti-Semitic reader comments at the CBC, and quoted this one: "Jesus may have been a Jew himself but I know for a fact that he didn't take part in the eating of blood-filled pastries made from the blood of Palestinian children."

The theme of Jews thirsting for blood resurfaced during Israel's war with Hamas. For example, a reader, identifying himself as 'LoranHayden,' portrayed Jews as racist, genocidal baby-killers, savouring "Muslim juice."

In Canada, anti-Jewish extremists like this are part of the lunatic fringe. On the CBC message boards, they're prolific.

For example, 536 CBC.ca readers clicked on the link to recommend a comment by 'sandy411' in which he/she compared Israel's assault on Hamas to the Holocaust and added a reference to Israel wanting "pounds of flesh," like Shylock the Jew.

'Sandy411' added: "How many tons of Palestinian women and children will settle your account, Israel?" It was the most popular comment of the day.

I wrote to the CBC to complain, citing eight of the most odious comparisons of Jews to Nazis, all of them taken from reader comments on a single story published Dec. 27.

While I waited for a reply, the Hamas war got into full swing and CBC.ca readers began posting more than 1,000 comments a day on the topic. I collected 50 more examples of anti-Semitic attacks: everything from 'DrDavid' referring to Jews as vermin and praising Hitler to 'FRTknocker' denigrating Canadian Jews as 'zionazis' and telling us to get out of Canada.

I could have found hundreds more, but I took my 50 examples and submitted another complaint.

Two weeks later, the CBC replied. They had reviewed the comments I'd pointed out and agreed the "vast majority" were unacceptable. They reviewed other comments posted by the same users, found many were just as bad and removed them, too.

Even better, management showed the moderators, who screen reader comments, the anti-Semitic attacks that they had allowed, made them "aware of the problem users," and refreshed them "on the issue of anti-Semitism in general."

Moreover, the CBC agreed that comparisons of Israel (and Jews) to the Nazis and of Gaza to a concentration camp "fall outside acceptable discourse on the topic."

In short, it was an outstanding, highly professional response. And I wasn't satisfied.

A glance at recent stories showed the moderators were still allowing some gross anti-Semitism and Holocaust-baiting to slip through. Besides, though the CBC would block or remove a comment suggesting Jews are baby-killing Nazis, the reader was welcome to come back with some more subtle Jew-baiting.

So I wrote and complained again.

I'm still waiting for a reply but not impatiently, because in the meanwhile - to their great credit -the CBC has gotten better at screening out anti-Semitic attacks.

Also, they've posted a new policy, stating that people who offend the CBC's policies may have their account suspended. In other words, Jew-haters can get themselves banned.

Many readers commenting at CBC.ca still demonize Israel. They call it racist, terrorist, apartheid. They're still preparing a rationale for wiping Israel off the map, still in the business of supplying a warrant for genocide.

But the CBC has drawn a line in the sand. Attacking Jews is going a step too far. So is comparing the Nazi Jew-killers to the Jewish state. That sort of thing used to get posted at the CBC. Not anymore.
 

Brian Henry is a Toronto writer and editor. He's an occasional Instructor at Ryerson University's G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Studies and a frequent contributor to H-Anti-Semitism, a scholarly forum for the discussion of the history of anti-Semitism. Comments are welcome at his blog: http://brians-op-eds.blogspot.com/.

HonestReporting.ca

To support our continued efforts to hold the Canadian news media accountable for their reporting on Israel, please donate here today. Through your donations, you can help ensure that Canadian journalists are held to the highest standards of "Honest Reporting."

Or send a cheque to:

HonestReporting Canada

P.O. Box 6, Station Q, Toronto, Ontario M4T 2L7

(416) 915-9157

Thank you for your ongoing commitment to fair and accurate
media coverage of Israel and the Middle East

 



You are currently subscribed to honestreportingcanada as: pressing4truth.canada@blogger.com
To unsubscribe click here
or send a blank email to leave-9491382-30846861.70055780e4c7785a46ecfd4be95feb9c@pr1.netatlantic.com

VIDEO:Canada Human Rights

VIDEO of CTV PowerPlay Canada Human? Rights Commission?

Iranian S-Elections?

Evolution / Intelligent Design

Legitimate Questions Should Be Discussed

I am reminded of how established "science" has been wrong many times before such as in the case of Piltdown man. So could it be wrong now? Or has it been perfected? Should not reasonable arguments be considered?

We have become a nation of beggars

Terence Corcoran reports in the National Post on Friday, January 16, 2009 that the STIMULUS everyone is yelling for may only work over a short period and may actually MAKE THE ECONOMY WORSE over longer periods.

[Read the article below for the researchers who studied this phenomenon.]

POINTS

- "What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?"

- Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

-One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

-A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

-Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

- What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

The whole article by Terrance Corcoran follows:

Are you "shovel-ready," poised to hit the ground running, or merely desperate for cheap cash to get through the recession? If so, here's your last chance to apply to Ottawa for a piece of the massive government spending-bailout-infrastructure-stimulus operation now being prepared for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's Jan. 27 budget extravaganza.

To get you going, the National Post has created an all-purpose Stimulus Canada application document. Simply make sure your company/institution fills out the form here to get in on the action.

We're just kidding, of course, or at least we were until our satirical Stimulus Canada General Application Form was mugged by reality, which is rapidly turning out to be funnier than the fanciful idea of a government department called Stimulus Canada. To all intents and purposes, Stimulus Canada already exists.

Government money to flow, the taps are opening, deficits are no problem. The spending, as Stephen Harper said after a meeting with the premiers on Friday, will be "very significant" and there will be "very significant deficits." That could mean new spending of $20-billion and deficits of $40-billion.

Industry groups, corporate opportunists, charities, municipal politicians, arts groups, provincial premiers, tech firms, mining companies, forestry operators, banks, money lenders -- in fact, just about everybody has come forward to get in on Canada's portion of what is turning out to be a mad global government stimulus pandemic.

Each claims to have a plan or an idea that they say would produce jobs, spending, investment and activity that would get Canada through the recession and stimulate the economy.

At some point, though, the clamour of claims and calls becomes absurd, and that point looks to have been crossed the other day in the United States when porn merchant Larry Flint said the U.S. sex industry was falling on hard times, business was down 25%, and it needed a $5-billion slice of the $1.2-billion U.S. stimulus program.

And why not?

Mr. Flint has a point. It is not totally illogical for anyone to think that way. If you spend a dollar somewhere -- whether building a bridge or operating a forest company or buying a car -- it generates activity. And, after all, it's a grand old economic theory, created by John Maynard Keynes, that spending, especially government spending, rolls through the economy on a giant multiplier, piling jobs on jobs, growth on growth.

Except for one problem: What if it's not true? What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?

The Prime Minister, in his comments on Friday, seemed to be riding right into the barnyard. He said the government would be simply "borrowing money that is not being used" and "that business is afraid to invest." By borrowing that money, and turning it over to all the groups and interests looking for part of the stimulus spending, he would be jump-starting activity while the private sector got its legs back.

Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

Two other studies point in the same direction. A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

Over at Stimulus Canada, Mr. Harper's plan looks somewhat more modest and Canada is not in the same fiscal fix as the United States. But Ottawa and the provinces are clearly ready to borrow big wads of money from the future to stimulate the economy today. It's money that is supposedly sitting out there in the timid hands of investors who will be repaid with tax dollars later.

But if that stimulus spending does not generate much fresh economic growth, and the borrowing chews up money that private investors could invest in the future, the shovel-ready brigades who get the cash today will produce only short term gains at the expense of the long term health of the economy.

Educational Purposes Only

All articles quoted here are for educational purposes only. Canada-For-Truth encourages you to read the original articles on their respective sites.
We do not necessarily agree with all links posted here but we include them to bring balance to an unbalanced media.