Originally Posted by rhaikh
What's relevant is the original position you held which implied that Buruma was fired due to simply publishing Ghomeshi, which you used to back up your main thesis that some on the left would rather have censorship than free speech. The implication of connecting these two things is that Buruma was being censored for publishing an opinion that is unpopular with the left.

However, for Buruma to be fired for only publishing an unpopular opinion, you are assuming that whomever had the power to fire Buruma believed that promoting an opinion is something that can be done via publishing, and they disagreed with the opinion Buruma promoted, and therefore he was fired. If I'm being charitable, I could also say that you were instead implying that they didn't care what Buruma did, but they were kowtowing to outside pressure - I've heard from either their advertisers and/or from twitter.


I am pleasantly surprised that you accurately represented my position. Thank you.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
From the NYRB editorial staff's statement regarding this issue, it's clear that they deny some assumptions of both of these cases. They deny that Twitter had anything to do with it, and they deny that this marks a new policy of avoiding publishing controversial opinions.


I don't find their denial to be credible, especially because alternative explanation for their actions doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
More importantly, what that statement does instead is to confirm that they believe that as a result of their ability to promote an opinion through their platform, they intend to be careful about not doing so.


Could you explain to me what is practical difference between "careful not to promote" and outright censorship?

Originally Posted by rhaikh
They therefore believe that their publication has an editorial responsibility in providing a balanced package of opinion, rather than to promote only one side of a specific agenda; and on this criteria they feel they have failed in this instance.


Perhaps by virtue of being familiar with this story I assumed that acknowledging opposing opinion, that got more than plenty of coverage already, is stating the obvious. After all, when speaking about OJ Simpson, it safe to assume that majority of listeners would be familiar with the background.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
After having lived through decades of Fox News, it's clear to me that platform is promotion (subtle but important difference from "publishing is agreement"), and that a responsible editor trying to present a balanced viewpoint should have only published Ghomeshi's rant alongside something to temper it - like editorial fact checking or alternative viewpoints.


I think Fox News is a special case that you cannot generalize from. Fox News is awful because they intentionally mislead and withhold information. Ghomeshi's essay does not have these characteristics. If you disagree, please point to specifics with explanation.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Now, I am assuming that their adherence to balance is a result of their agreement with my position that unbalanced promotion also has real consequences, but I grant that is not something they have stated.


I don't subscribe to this explanation. While it is plausible, it requires further proof to be credible.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
However if that is truly something you wanted to debate, as a preview of my evidence I again refer you to the fallout of decades of Fox News which we are currently suffering.


I agree with this point.

[Linked Image]