Friday, March 18, 2005

The Impact of the NY Times Story on the CSpan controversy

It's been an unbelievable day. As you can see from an earlier post both the AP and UP picked up the story. I did a number of interviews, including one with the LA Times, which admitted that it was playing "catch up" with the New York Times. They may have been playing catch up, but they did a great interview. Haven't seen the story yet.

I also wrote a summary of the situation for History News Network at George Mason University which we will post here later. [The "We" is really the unbelievably generous Hilary Ostrov, who has helped me keep my head above water.]

Even the broadcast media has weighed in. MSNBC wanted me to appear on Scarborough Country with a representative from CSpan. [I keep typing CSpam, could that be a Freudian slip?] I happily agreed. I am anxious to be in communication with them.
CSpan declined. MSNBC decided not to do the story.

I guess they wanted balance.

13 comments:

Tom said...

Ms. Lipstadt is defaming Irving and she is gloating over her power fight with C-SPAN. Ms. Lipstadt is a game player, she cannot honestly say that people are not being deceived when she uses the term "Holocaust Denier" and that it is causing unnecessary anguish for many people. I am sure many people hearing about the "Holocaust Denier" would be SHOCKED to learn that it is actually Lipstadt's outragous lie. I am sure people would be shocked to learn that Irving said at the Libel Trial, "I do not deny that there was some kind of gassing at gas chambers in Birkenau, it is highly likely that there was." (Emphasis mine. For the layperson it should be explained with regards to the words "Birkenau" and "Auschwitz" that it is often refered to as "Auschwitz-Birkenau" or the "Auschwitz camp at Birkenau") and keep in mind that Irving said this at the trial with Lipstadt, the very trial Lipstadt's book is about!
3/19/2005 08:41:00 AM

debunking the idiots said...

Since Irving is a Holocaust denier, you're defaming Lipstadt now.

david gehrig said...

Tom, at this point you're apparently being intentionally obtuse. Nobody says that Irving has said the Nazis killed no Jews. If you're confused about what the phrase "Holocaust denier" means, take a look at Justice Gray's judgment. "Section VIII -- Justification: the Claim that Irving is a 'Holocaust Denier'" is many pages on exactly this subject -- the term's definitions, and whether Irving fits under that definition.

Then in paragraph 13.92 Justice Gray says: "I accept the evidence of Evans, which was not challenged by Irving, that what characterises a "Holocaust denier", in the sense in which that term is used by Lipstadt in Denying the Holocaust, is that he or she holds or expresses some or all of the views which I have listed in paragraph 8.5 above." At which point he goes on to say that, yes, Irving fits that definition.

In Section VIII Justice Gray explicitly mentions your point, the point you're so manically hammering away at, and shows why it's a misunderstanding of the meaning of the phrase "Holocaust denier."

But look at it this way. If I said that only fourteen people died at the Battle of Gettysburg, although explicitly pointing out that those fourteen people died miserably, while claiming that all the other deaths were part of some historical conspiratorial fraud, wouldn't you be justified in calling me a "Gettysburg denier" for having denied the central facts of the battle?

So you can continue to flog this dead horse all you'd like, Tom, but you've lost the point.

@%<

Tom said...

Fourteen people!?! You have totally distorted the whole thing, and proved my point.

That is so far from the comparision to the numbers of victims of the Holocaust that it is a dishonest analogy.

david gehrig said...

The principles are exactly the same. And the outcome is equally absurd.

The difference is, the line of argument that Irving bought into can easily be demonstrated to have been grown, nurtured, and publicized by long-established hate groups. So he not only fell for a fallacy, he fell for an inherently antisemitic fallacy with a history deeply entwined with overtly antisemitic organizations.

Irving presumably calculated that his previous status as a writer would be enough to give him cover for his antisemitic theorizing.

It wasn't.

@%<

debunking the idiots said...

"Fourteen people!?! You have totally distorted the whole thing, and proved my point."

How about pointing out the distortion, instead of merely making a claim?

"That is so far from the comparision to the numbers of victims of the Holocaust that it is a dishonest analogy."

On the contrary, it is a very apt analogy. Just as Irving accepts some Jewish deaths (and even maybe (just maybe) some gassings in Auschwitz), but not the extermination program, mass gassings and the real extent of the genocide, those who say that just 14 people died in Gettysburg would be called deniers, even if they don't actually deny "some deaths" or even "some murders".

disneycorporation said...

In the NYTimes and AP stories I notice BOTH say the libel suit was "dismissed". This is incorrect, right? A verdict was reached, which is not what "dismissed" implies to me.... Or am I reading that too closely?

Bennett Tramer said...

I'm sorry to be stuck on Thursday when it's already Saturday but I keep wondering just who the people were who told Amy Roach it was a "great idea" to insist on airing David Irving to balance Deborah Lipstadt. "Everyone with whom they spoke?" I think Ms. Roach and C-Span need to broaden their circle.

iAmerican said...

Rome committed the Holocaust as the Industrial-Age, mass-produced "ritual persecution" they'd accomplished against the Jews, and others, over the preceding thousands of years by "sword and flame."

Read Goldhagen's "A Moral Reckoning."

C-SPAN, like the Knight of Malta-led CIA which assassinated JFK six-weeks after he ordered our withdrawal from French Roman Catholic Indochina, is Roman Catholic.

C-SPAN wants to air Irving for a reason.

Rome's Fifth Column Rockefeller/Bush/Nixon-faction is "alive and well" even after their treason and lies of 9/11, WMD and false war for Rome's Chaldean Iraqi minority.

Bennett Tramer said...

I'm sorry to be back on Thursday when so much has happened since, but I keep wondering just who the people were who assured Amy Roach that it was "a great idea" to insist on airing David Irving to balance Deborah Lipstadt. Everyone with whom she spoke? I think Ms. Roach and C-Span need to broaden their circle.

Tom said...

I wrote, "Fourteen people!?! You have totally distorted the whole thing, and proved my point."

"debunking the idiots" asked, "How about pointing out the distortion, instead of merely making a claim?"

debunking the idiots, when you use a number extremely low like fourteen as an example of a "Gettysburg denier" you prove my point. 14 out of the total deaths at Gettysburg? (there is not complete agreement on the total deaths abut we could use the total of 10,000) "At least 10,000 soldiers were killed or mortally wounded in the three-day Battle of Gettysburg." Lipstadt must have given you the wrong idea of what Irving thinks the total number of Jews is who died in the Holocaust is. You can't think it is fair to equate 14 out of 10,000 to something between 1,000,000 out of 6,000,000 to 4,000,000 out of 6,000,000. Come on! Lipstadt clearly has libeled the man if you think that the percentages between those comparisons are anywhere close. Take what Irving said the number of deaths were at the least, 1,000,000. Do you realize that you are saying that 17% of the total is about the same as estimating 0.14% of the total? Using that percentage, you think Irving thinks only 8,400 Jews died????

debunking the idiots said...

Tom, spare me your mathematical demagoguery. Exact percentage hardly matters here. The principle does. You are splitting hairs.

david gehrig said...

Poor "Tom." Nobody's buying his red herring.

You can't pretend any longer that Irving denies several key, central facts of the Holocaust, among them the use of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, the state-supported plan for genocide, and -- in the most generous of his ever-changing numbers -- nearly half the death toll.

Now, you seem to be small-minded enough that you're probably going to respond that "nearly half" is a much different proportion than the one I used. And my response is, of course, so what? The example was designed to illustrate a principle, and that illustration stands no matter the proportions. In fact, the illustration stands so well, it's only on the matter of proportions that you can attack it even slightly, which is why you've gone yammity-yammity-yammity on just that marginal-at-best point to the exclusion of all else.

But, then, that's what Holocaust deniers do.

@%<