[Please note this is a revised and amended version of my original post on the show which was broadcast on Sunday afternoon, April 3rd]
CSpan devoted an hour to the trial. The program began with Connie Doebele, Executive Producer of Book TV being interviewed by some unidentified man. She explained how this entire controversy came about.
*She noted that they had received over 3000 emails, most of them quite critical of them for wanting to put me on with Irving.
*She said their intention was to broadcast my presentation and to follow that up with a conversation with a journalist who would show clips of Irving and provide context for them. [Comment: They never said this to me or to Harper Collins.]
*She quite emphatically said: “We never intended to balance the holocaust.” Though, she did acknowledge using that terminology in explaining their programming plans. It was, she said, “internal jargon” that journalists use which means, “looking for another voice.” She expressed regret for having used the term.
*Regarding their plan to air Irving by himself, she suggested that I had misunderstood, and said this was the “standard bargaining thing that journalists do.” They suggest to the person who is reluctant to go on that their voice will not be heard unless they do. [Comment: Of course, they had told this to both Richard Cohen and to me. And if they were simply trying to strong arm me into appearing, I guess that they -- just like David Irving -- did quite know what makes me tick.]
*Now, because “Deborah Lipstadt refused to allow us to tape her program,” they will be doing an abbreviated version of their original program, i.e. they would only show the part with TR Reid of the Washington Post who was in London during the trial.
COMMENT: No one at CSpan ever said that that was how they intended to cover the book. In a number of conversations with my publisher and with me they never said this was how they planned to do it. Had they told me this I never would have objected.
TR Reid:
When TR Reid came on he made the following points:
*Irving is an amateur historian.
* Irving is someone who, rather than deny the Holocaust, argued that Hitler did not know about the Holocaust. [Comment: While this was the thrust of Irving's argument in his book, Hitler War, which was published in the late 1970s, now Irving's Holocaust denial extends far more broadly than that. He says there were no gas chambers. There was no plan to murder the Jews. The survivors are all liars. In short, there was no Holocaust.]
* Irving was "forum shopping," i.e. looking for a place where he could sue Lipstadt.
*Deborah Lipstadt and her lawyers set out to “prove he was a liar and they proved it.”
*Lipstadt’s depiction of Irving in her book, Denying the Holocaust, was totally accurate,” and the trial was a “disaster” for Irving.
*“Both these people are fighters….Lipstadt felt she had to fight for history and truth… and “both of them enjoyed this battle.” [Comment: Had he read the book he would know that was wrong. I am pleased with the outcome (who wouldn't be pleased with such a verdict? -- but I wish it had never happened.]
*Doesn’t understand why David Irving brought this suit. He was “outgunned in legal terms. He was outgunned on the facts".
*It is possible that Irving was playing to his "new" audience, right wingers, and holocaust denier groups.
* There was no way Irving could win this case [having a jury would not have made a difference.]
*Reid repeated on a number of occasions, “She’s a fighter. She felt was fighting for truth and history and it frustrated her not to take the stand.” [Comment: That's right.]
*She did not take the stand because we were frightened that Irving would use the opportunity to introduce correspondence I had received when writing my book about Holocaust deniers. The letter, from Professor Yehuda Bauer, suggested that I include more about Irving. It is, by the way, standard operating procedure for other historians to comment on a manuscript and give suggestions. This is what Bauer was doing.
Had I taken the stand, Reid believed, Irving would use this to argue you see there was a conspiracy.
Comment: My not taking the stand had nothing to do with this material [Guttenplan got that wrong as he got many other things wrong.] First of all, that material was introduced into the trial by Irving. It was not a secret.
I did not go into the witness box, even though I wanted to, because, as Rampton repeatedly said, you are being sued for what you wrote. There is nothing you can add that will enlighten the judge on the decision he has to make. Our job is to prove David Irving is a liar. I explain this repeatedly in the book.
Comment: TR Reid had not read the book, which he told CSpan was the case when they invited him to appear. Despite this fact, a show called Book TV, had him appear even though he had not read the book about which all the controversy revolved.
* Reid was struck by the fact that Irving expected to lose. On the morning of the verdict he bumped into Irving who told him: “I am probably going to lose.” In fact, until the day before the verdict, Irving had been predicting he would win. He boasted on his website how he had convinced the judge of the rightness of his cause. The CSpan interviewer had to point out – she had clearly read the book – that because the lawyers [and Irving was acting as his own lawyer] get the verdict 24 hours before the clients; he already knew he had lost.
* According to Reid the solution for bad speech is more speech. Comment: I agree and am not against Irving speaking. In fact, Irving tried to silence me. He sued me in order to have my book withdrawn from circulation. I don't think CSpan has an obligation to broadcast a talk by a man, about whom the court said he "deliberate[ly]" distorted history. And, should CSpan choose to broadcast him, I don’t believe it should force me into a debate which is no debate.
Some final thoughts:
1. I wish CSpan had just admitted that they made a mistake from the outset and had not claimed that they were intending to just show a few clips of Irving. CSpan is an important national institution. It gets people to read and think about books. I have no desire to fight with CSpan, but they should have been more honest about how they messed up from the outset.
2. I wish CSpan had given TR Reid, a careful journalist, a chance to read my book before going on the show.
3. Finally, as I stress in the book, I was not trying to deny Irving a right to speak. I was simply refusing to be pushed into a debate which is no debate and with someone who is a proven liar. How can you debate a liar?
4. Never, in all the years I have been watching CSpan, have I seen a policy towards "balance." Why here?
5. And since they seem to be so interested in balance and fairness, how about a chance for me to go on and correct the impression given to listeners about my views?
Tuesday, April 5, 2005
Harvard Crimson weighs in on C-SPAN
Today's issue of The Harvard Crimson has an article which includes coverage of the petition as well as BookTV's Sunday broadcast. The writer gets a few things wrong - including calling Irving an "historian" and an "accused" Holocaust denier. The trial 5 years ago conclusively and indisputably proved that he's not an historian and that he is a Holocaust denier. Here are some excerpts:
Harvard Profs Sign Petition Against C-Span Telecast of Holocaust Denier
Almost 600 historians and academics—including 18 Harvard professors—have signed a petition protesting the public television station C-SPAN’s plan to broadcast a lecture by historian and accused Holocaust denier David Irving.
The controversy stemmed from C-SPAN’s initial decision to air Irving’s talk immediately after a lecture by Emory University Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies Deborah E. Lipstadt.
[...]
On Sunday, “Book TV” featured a discussion with Washington Post reporter T.R. Reid about the book and the trial and showed assorted clips of Lipstadt and Irving. No lectures were aired, and Lipstadt said that to the best of her knowledge, none will.
Lipstadt had refused to appear on C-SPAN upon learning of the planned broadcast time of Irving’s lecture.
“What they wanted to do was to set me up, to force me into a debate,” Lipstadt said. “There is nothing to debate.”
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies then organized a petition urging the station to show only Lipstadt’s lecture and circulated the petition among academics.
[...]
The petition attracted 570 signatures.
“Clearly, this had an impact on C-SPAN,” [Wyman Institute Director, Rafael] Medoff said after the Sunday program aired. “The program that they broadcast was a clear demonstration that they realized they had made a mistake,” he said.
[...]
In his books and during the trial, Irving has claimed, for example, that gas chambers were not used at Auschwitz and that the atrocities against the Jews were not mainly directed by Adolf Hitler.
[...]
“The notion that one gives this man David Irving room on C-SPAN is outrageous,” said Baird Professor of History Emeritus Richard E. Pipes, who signed the petition.
Lipstadt said Irving is a “fabricator of evidence and a liar.”
Irving defended his reputation and refused to be deemed a Holocaust denier.
“I think the epithet is completely undeserved,” Irving said, adding that American publishers have refused to print his books since the controversy.
[...]
Irving called Lipstadt an “upstart young professor,” and criticized the scholars who signed the petition for engaging in censorship and submitting to departmental peer pressure.
In a column by Richard Cohen that appeared in The Washington Post on March 15, Senior Executive Producer of “Book TV” Connie Doebele explained the decision to include Irving’s lecture: “You know how important fairness and balance is at C-SPAN....We ask ourselves, ‘Is there an opposing view of this?’”
[...]
But on “Book TV’s” Sunday night edition, Doebele said she regretted her choice of words.
“Using the word ‘balance’ is kind of an internal jargon that we use here in the newsroom,” she said. “What it means really is looking for another voice out there.”
All of the petition signatories who spoke with The Crimson agreed that including Irving does not promote journalistic objectivity.
“It is a distortion of the concept of ‘balance’ to give publicity and legitimacy to Irving and his proven falsehoods,” petition signatory and Sociology Department Chair Mary C. Waters wrote in an e-mail.
[...]
“This is not balance,” said Lipstadt. “This is a guy who is saying the historical equivalent of ‘the earth is flat.’”
Monday, April 4, 2005
N.Y. Times: "C-SPAN Regrets"
Here is the lead item in the April 5 N.Y. Times "Arts, Briefly":
C-Span Regrets
A C-Span producer has expressed regret for using the word balance to describe its plan to accompany coverage of a book by a professor of Holocaust studies with speeches by a man who has argued that Hitler was not fully responsible for the mass murder of Jews. Connie Doebele, the executive producer of "Book TV" on C-Span, said the word balance was never intended to be taken literally but was, instead, "internal jargon" referring to the use of other voices. The plan drew hundreds of protests from historians and other scholars and thousands from the public. The turmoil surrounded C-Span's intention to cover "History on Trial: My Day in Court With David Irving" (Ecco) by Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University. C-Span also intended to include coverage of talks by Mr. Irving, a British writer who sued her for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier. When he sued, the British Royal High Court found for Professor Lipstadt and concluded that Mr. Irving was anti-Semitic and racist and that he had persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.
C-Span Regrets
A C-Span producer has expressed regret for using the word balance to describe its plan to accompany coverage of a book by a professor of Holocaust studies with speeches by a man who has argued that Hitler was not fully responsible for the mass murder of Jews. Connie Doebele, the executive producer of "Book TV" on C-Span, said the word balance was never intended to be taken literally but was, instead, "internal jargon" referring to the use of other voices. The plan drew hundreds of protests from historians and other scholars and thousands from the public. The turmoil surrounded C-Span's intention to cover "History on Trial: My Day in Court With David Irving" (Ecco) by Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University. C-Span also intended to include coverage of talks by Mr. Irving, a British writer who sued her for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier. When he sued, the British Royal High Court found for Professor Lipstadt and concluded that Mr. Irving was anti-Semitic and racist and that he had persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.
N.Y. Sun on BookTV's Coverage of History on Trial
Here are some excerpts from an article in today's issue of the N.Y. Sun:
C-SPAN's Attempt To 'Balance' Views On Holocaust Deemed an 'Absurdity'
BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 4, 2005
In the face of protests from historians and Jewish groups, C-SPAN yesterday backed down from plans to air a lengthy speech from an author whom critics and a British court have labeled as a holocaust denier.
Instead, the network's popular "Book TV" program included only two brief video clips from David Irving, the British historian who in 2000 lost a highly publicized libel case against an American professor, Deborah Lipstadt. The professor had accused Mr. Irving of being an anti-Semite and of grossly distorting evidence in order to prove that the Holocaust was largely a myth.
[...]
The compromise program C-SPAN aired yesterday left both Ms. Lipstadt and Mr. Irving sharply critical of the network.
The broadcast was prefaced with an unusual five-minute interview, in which the executive producer of "Book TV", Constance Doebele, defended the network.
"Our programming plan was to show Deborah Lipstadt at her Harvard event, to bring in a journalist who could bring - put some context into this and explain it to an American audience and to show a few clips of David Irving," Ms. Doebele said.
In arranging the program, C-SPAN producers said they hoped to "balance" Ms. Lipstadt's views with those of Mr. Irving. This drew fire from a Washington Post columnist, Richard Cohen, who called the approach "mindless" and branded it as "the 'Crossfire' mentality reduced to absurdity."
Ms. Doebele said yesterday C-SPAN received nearly 3,000 e-mails about the planned program, most of them strongly discouraging the network from featuring Mr. Irving. She said yesterday that her use of the term "balance" was unfortunate.
"We never intended to balance the Holocaust," Ms. Doebele said. "Using that word balance is kind of an internal jargon that we use here in the newsroom. What it means really is looking for another voice out there. ... I really regret using the word 'balance.'"
[...]
The bulk of the 65-minute program that followed was devoted to an interview with a Washington Post reporter who covered the libel trial, T.R. Reid. The program included two video clips from Mr. Irving's talk at Atlanta, and four clips of Ms. Lipstadt: three on video and one from a radio show.
In an interview with The New York Sun, Ms. Lipstadt said the network was engaged in some historical revisionism of its own.
"I thought C-SPAN was disingenuous," she said. "They never told me they wanted to use clips of Irving. I would have said, 'Absolutely.' What I was told from the outset was they were going to balance me. What I was sad about was that they couldn't say they made a mistake. I was disappointed."
[...]
A spokeswoman for C-SPAN, Jennifer Moore, declined to answer questions about the broadcast and said the network stands by Ms. Doebele's on-air statement.
Ms. Lipstadt said the program misled viewers by suggesting that the libel trial at London did not deal squarely with Mr. Irving's views on the Holocaust. "The case was not about whether Hitler knew about the Holocaust or not," she said.
Ms. Lipstadt also said she found it bizarre that the "Book TV" program involved little discussion of her new book, "History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving." The professor said she did not believe Mr. Reid had even read the volume. "There was an hour on my trial but it wasn't about my book," she said.
In an interview with the Sun last night, Mr. Reid said Ms. Lipstadt was correct. "I haven't read her book. I told them that. I told C-SPAN I hadn't read the book," the reporter said. "They asked me to come and talk about a trial."
Mr. Reid said he believes his comments captured the gist of the trial. He said he was a bit baffled by Ms. Lipstadt's criticism. "I agree with Professor Lipstadt about David Irving's view of the Holocaust. I don't think her policy of not appearing with him is right," Mr. Reid said.
[...]
Wyman Institute: "C-SPAN Admits Error"
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies has issued a news release following yesterday's BookTV program.
C-SPAN Admits Error in Plan to Air Holocaust-Denier
PHILADELPHIA, April 4 /U.S. Newswire/ -- C-SPAN has publicly acknowledged it was wrong to plan to broadcast a speech by Holocaust-denier David Irving, following a petition by over 500 historians and other scholars organized by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.
"C-SPAN now admits it was wrong to try to 'balance' the history of the Holocaust by broadcasting a professional liar who claims the Holocaust never happened. This is a significant victory over the antisemitic industry of Holocaust-denial," said Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of the Wyman Institute.
When C-SPAN's "Book TV" program announced last month that it would "balance" a broadcast of Holocaust scholar Prof. Deborah Lipstadt with a broadcast of Holocaust-denier David Irving, the Wyman Institute organized a petition urging C-SPAN to cancel the Irving broadcast, arguing that "Giving a platform to a Holocaust- denier to 'balance' a Holocaust historian is as outrageous as giving a platform to the Flat Earth Society to balance a speech by an astronomer, or broadcasting a program about Black history that would be "balanced" by a program featuring someone denying that African-Americans were enslaved."
Within ten days, more than 500 prominent historians and other scholars signed the petition. C-SPAN has also reported that it received more than 3,000 e-mails, most of them opposing the plan to broadcast Irving.
In response, C-Span canceled its plan to broadcast Irving's speech; aired a program (on April 3 and April 4) in which Book TV executive producer Connie Doebele admitted it was wrong for C- Span to plan to "balance" Lipstadt's lecture with Irving, and expressed regret; and presented brief excerpts of Irving's remarks with a commentator describing him as a Holocaust-denier, rather than uncritically presenting his speech, as it had originally planned.
The signatories to the Wyman Institute petition included:
-- New Republic editor-in-chief Dr. Martin Peretz, Harvard Law School Prof. Alan Dershowitz, and Princeton scholar Dr. Michael Walzer;
-- Internationally renowned historians and scholars Eric Foner, Simon Schama, and Istvan Deak, of Columbia; David Brion Davis, Harold Bloom, and Paul Kennedy of Yale; Charles Maier and Richard Pipes of Harvard; and Robert Dallek of Boston University;
-- Pulitzer prize winning historians David Levering Lewis, Jack Rakove, and Lloyd Schwartz;
-- Media notables Marvin Kalb and Ben Stein;
-- Holocaust scholars Christopher Browning, Richard Breitman, Deborah Dwork, David S. Wyman, Randolph Braham, Daniel Goldhagen, Omer Bartov, and Ronald Zweig;
-- Leading Jewish historians Jonathan Sarna, Yosef Yerushalmi, Robert Chazan, and Deborah Dash Moore
-- Bard College president Leon Botstein and University of Bridgeport president emeritus Richard L. Rubenstein.
as well as historians from England, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Israel, and Japan.
( To view the full list of signatories, go to http://www.WymanInstitute.org )
C-SPAN Admits Error in Plan to Air Holocaust-Denier
PHILADELPHIA, April 4 /U.S. Newswire/ -- C-SPAN has publicly acknowledged it was wrong to plan to broadcast a speech by Holocaust-denier David Irving, following a petition by over 500 historians and other scholars organized by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.
"C-SPAN now admits it was wrong to try to 'balance' the history of the Holocaust by broadcasting a professional liar who claims the Holocaust never happened. This is a significant victory over the antisemitic industry of Holocaust-denial," said Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of the Wyman Institute.
When C-SPAN's "Book TV" program announced last month that it would "balance" a broadcast of Holocaust scholar Prof. Deborah Lipstadt with a broadcast of Holocaust-denier David Irving, the Wyman Institute organized a petition urging C-SPAN to cancel the Irving broadcast, arguing that "Giving a platform to a Holocaust- denier to 'balance' a Holocaust historian is as outrageous as giving a platform to the Flat Earth Society to balance a speech by an astronomer, or broadcasting a program about Black history that would be "balanced" by a program featuring someone denying that African-Americans were enslaved."
Within ten days, more than 500 prominent historians and other scholars signed the petition. C-SPAN has also reported that it received more than 3,000 e-mails, most of them opposing the plan to broadcast Irving.
In response, C-Span canceled its plan to broadcast Irving's speech; aired a program (on April 3 and April 4) in which Book TV executive producer Connie Doebele admitted it was wrong for C- Span to plan to "balance" Lipstadt's lecture with Irving, and expressed regret; and presented brief excerpts of Irving's remarks with a commentator describing him as a Holocaust-denier, rather than uncritically presenting his speech, as it had originally planned.
The signatories to the Wyman Institute petition included:
-- New Republic editor-in-chief Dr. Martin Peretz, Harvard Law School Prof. Alan Dershowitz, and Princeton scholar Dr. Michael Walzer;
-- Internationally renowned historians and scholars Eric Foner, Simon Schama, and Istvan Deak, of Columbia; David Brion Davis, Harold Bloom, and Paul Kennedy of Yale; Charles Maier and Richard Pipes of Harvard; and Robert Dallek of Boston University;
-- Pulitzer prize winning historians David Levering Lewis, Jack Rakove, and Lloyd Schwartz;
-- Media notables Marvin Kalb and Ben Stein;
-- Holocaust scholars Christopher Browning, Richard Breitman, Deborah Dwork, David S. Wyman, Randolph Braham, Daniel Goldhagen, Omer Bartov, and Ronald Zweig;
-- Leading Jewish historians Jonathan Sarna, Yosef Yerushalmi, Robert Chazan, and Deborah Dash Moore
-- Bard College president Leon Botstein and University of Bridgeport president emeritus Richard L. Rubenstein.
as well as historians from England, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Israel, and Japan.
( To view the full list of signatories, go to http://www.WymanInstitute.org )
Sunday, April 3, 2005
David Neiwert comments on C-SPAN's unprofessional behaviour
Neiwert is a journalist who had previously commented on this issue. This morning, he had posted his take on the way in which C-SPAN has chosen to deal with this. He concludes:
C-SPAN and Holocaust Denial
I'll watch this afternoon and report back. But the signs are not encouraging. So far, C-SPAN's behavior has been not only unprofessional, it is entirely inconsistent with its previously established standards for "balance": When it broadcast conferences of the white-supremacist organizations American Renaissance and Council of Concerned Citizens, it felt no need to "balance" those discussions with opposing viewpoints. One has to wonder why, once again, truth and fact have to contend on an equal footing with lies and vicious slander.
C-SPAN on C-SPAN
If you missed the program that Prof. Lipstadt mentioned earlier, and you don't want to wait for the 3:00 a.m. re-airing, you can view it from the C-SPAN site.
I had found this link earlier, but the audio was actually of another program! Sent them an E-mail pointing this out - then the link disappeared for a while, but now it's back.
Your mileage may vary, but I was not impressed with Doebele's explanation of the controversy, nor with T.R. Reid's supposed knowledge of the issues involved in the trial.
I had found this link earlier, but the audio was actually of another program! Sent them an E-mail pointing this out - then the link disappeared for a while, but now it's back.
Your mileage may vary, but I was not impressed with Doebele's explanation of the controversy, nor with T.R. Reid's supposed knowledge of the issues involved in the trial.
"Balance" and the Media
In this piece on the Reclaim the Media website David Neiwert begins with an analysis of the media's coverage of Terry Schiavo and moves on to talk about [and excoriate] C-Span.
Neiwart takes a "liberal" perspective on the issue. It's interesting to note that virtually everyone, from the "right", e.g. Little Green Footballs, to the "left" agree that C-Span really blew it.
Now let's see how they try to save face this afternoon [see previous post].
Neiwart takes a "liberal" perspective on the issue. It's interesting to note that virtually everyone, from the "right", e.g. Little Green Footballs, to the "left" agree that C-Span really blew it.
Now let's see how they try to save face this afternoon [see previous post].
Surprise Announcement by C-Span:
I just received the following announcement from Book Tv's executive producer. Ihave no idea what the program is all about. I had called Ms. Doebele twice last week and never heard back. Now I understand why....
Dear Dr. Lipstadt;
I'm writing to let you know that we have produced a program about your 2000 libel trial. It is scheduled to air on C-SPAN2 Book TV today, Sunday, April 3rd, at 4:30 pm eastern time (overnight re-air Monday morning at 3:00 am eastern time.) For more information you can go to our website at www.booktv.org
Connie Doebele
Executive Producer
Book TV
The following information appears on Book TV's website:
After Words
A Weekly Look at Selected Book TV Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday, April 3 at 4:30 pm and Monday, April 4 at 3:00 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipstadt/Irving Libel Trial
Description: Book TV presents a look at the 2000 libel trial between World War II writer David Irving and Emory University professor Deborah Lipstadt. The trial is detailed in Dr. Lipstadt's newest book, "History on Trial." Guests include T.R. Reid of the Washington Post, who covered the trial, as well as video clips of Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving. Historian John Lukacs is also interviewed.
Dear Dr. Lipstadt;
I'm writing to let you know that we have produced a program about your 2000 libel trial. It is scheduled to air on C-SPAN2 Book TV today, Sunday, April 3rd, at 4:30 pm eastern time (overnight re-air Monday morning at 3:00 am eastern time.) For more information you can go to our website at www.booktv.org
Connie Doebele
Executive Producer
Book TV
The following information appears on Book TV's website:
After Words
A Weekly Look at Selected Book TV Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday, April 3 at 4:30 pm and Monday, April 4 at 3:00 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipstadt/Irving Libel Trial
Description: Book TV presents a look at the 2000 libel trial between World War II writer David Irving and Emory University professor Deborah Lipstadt. The trial is detailed in Dr. Lipstadt's newest book, "History on Trial." Guests include T.R. Reid of the Washington Post, who covered the trial, as well as video clips of Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving. Historian John Lukacs is also interviewed.
Saturday, April 2, 2005
Letters to C-SPAN
If the contents of my mailbox are any indication, C-SPAN has been receiving a good many letters lately - by far the majority of them excoriating C-SPAN. There was some support - from expected quarters, of course. One Irving supporter wrote:
A supporter of C-SPAN (but not of Irving) wrote:
Here is a sampling of excerpts from the majority view:
"If Deborah Lipstadt is so convinced and confident about her beliefs and convictions regarding the Holocaust, then what does she have to fear in having an opposing view ? People that know they are in " the right " never fear debating opposing and incorrect viewpoints, and they welcome the opportunity to do so...
"What is she afraid of in having another viewpoint ? She must be hiding something, or perhaps she's not as convinced of her findings and beliefs as she would like us to believe...
"I applaud and commend C-Span for having the courage and confidence to attempt to give BOTH sides of a story, an equal chance. If people cease to be open to hearing all sides of an argument, then what's the point of having beliefs at all ?
"Kudos to you, C-Span, and I hope Ms. Lipstadt regains her courage and gives the public a fair opportunity to hear all views, not just hers..."
A supporter of C-SPAN (but not of Irving) wrote:
"Ms. Lipstadt has every right to refuse C-Span permission to tape her talk for whatever reason she wants. But she does herself no favor by doing so. I can't understand the preference that so many academics have to deny the other side a platform to speak, rather than engage in debate and debunk the bad arguments. […]
"What's more, I'm surprised Ms. Lipstadt didn't recognize what a gift C-Span was offering. She knows Irving's arguments better than anyone, and obviously she can effectively debunk them. Knowing that Irving's talk would be paired with hers, she could use that opportunity to knock down his key arguments and prepare the viewing audience to be critical of his presentation; or critique his arguments while they were fresh in the viewers' minds. Who cares, really, what happened in the libel case?; there's a bigger truth to present to the American people, a bigger lie to debunk, and the same big fool to expose. Plus, she can use mockery, anger, ridicule--all the rhetorical tricks a college professor has that are not allowed in a British court--to make her points that much better. Whatever order the two shows are shown, she can make Irving and his arguments look bad."
Here is a sampling of excerpts from the majority view:
"I would not expect a television with C-Span's gravitas and reputation for truth to give a platform to a man who has been described by a High Court judge as a liar who distorts facts. I have for a long time had the highest regard for C-Span's coverage and I am disappointed with you for even considering an interview [with] Mr. Irving. Deniers of the Holocaust, who are by definition not tellers of truth, have no place on C-Span"
"I am a regular viewer and supporter of book t.v. I have sent them an email re: my disappointment and astonishment at their position re: televising your discussion of your new book. I remember hearing you speak in Los Angeles where we live. I hope that cspan receives enough emails that they will know how unhappy their viewers are and that they will televise you soon. I will now add an addendum when I tell people about book t.v. and relate what has happened to you."
"I am outraged that you would give a platform to David Irving, who is a known Holocaust denier. This is an example of political correctness gone crazy, and anti-Semitism at its most dangerous. To allow David Irving to speak is an affront to each and every innocent who perished at the hands of Hitler for no other reason than their religion. To allow David Irving to speak and to give his outrageous assertions that the history of the Holocaust exaggerates the claims of the brutality of the Third Reich encourages the world to forget the horrors of the death camps. If your airing of David Irving encourages the world to erase the memory of even one innocent killed you have damaged our collective memory.
"I hope that C-Span will reconsider its decision to air David Irving and his ideas about rewriting history. [...] If C-Span gives David Irving a venue, then truth is threatened."
"If you read the court's 300 plus page decision or the parts included in D.Lipstadt's book, you would see that is all David [Irving] has to say is a "story." It is a "story" by a proven Holocaust denier, a liar, a person who fooled many into believing that he was a "historian" by deliberately falsifying facts. If you wish the public to hear these lies once more you could direct them to Lipstadt's book or the court's decision. [...] Your "Comment" is intellectually unsatisfactory. You have not responded to the positions of those that have written you reasonable reasons why you should not broadcast anything by Irving in conjunction with broadcasting Deborah Lipstadt and her amazing new book. Your apparent attempt to capitalize by broadcasting someone that you thought would bring controversy to her appearance and somehow boost your ratings has failed you and brought disgrace upon you and your network. Shame on you."
"In 2000, I was living in London and remember the trial well. David Irving had his day in court and was thoroughly repudiated.
"Thus, I don’t see the great need for CSPAN to present ‘his side’ of the story and allow him back into the public arena, especially in some kind of balancing effort."
Friday, April 1, 2005
Lipstadt replies to Emory Wheel re C-SPAN article
Prof. Lipstadt has responded to an article that appeared in the Emory Wheel last week:
The real story
April 01, 2005
To the editor:
In the March 25th edition of the Wheel (“Prof declines Book TV over Holocaust denier”), you reported on my refusal to appear on C-SPAN’s prestigious book show, Book TV, because the station wanted to juxtapose my presentation with that of Holocaust denier, David Irving.
I have long refused to debate deniers because their entire premise — that there was no Holocaust — is based on lies, fabrications and distortions. Three different courts in London found David Irving to be a liar and a falsifier of truth.
I was surprised, therefore, that your reporter chose to accept Irving’s statement that my claims about his being a Holocaust denier are part of my “obsession” with him and that he is “bored by the Holocaust.”
One should note that it is Irving who went into court on March 4th — for the fourth time — to try to sue me. Just who is obsessed with whom? And regarding his being “bored” by the Holocaust, about two weeks ago Irving appeared in Atlanta and gave a talk devoted almost entirely to the Holocaust.
He is giving the same talk, according to his Web site, throughout the United States. It certainly is a strange thing for him to be doing, if he is indeed bored by the topic. It seems to me that maybe, he is once again, as the court found he has repeatedly done before, fabricating the truth.
Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ph.D.
Dorot Professor of Modern
Jewish and Holocaust Studies
Director, Rabbi Donald Tam
Institute of Jewish Studies
The real story
April 01, 2005
To the editor:
In the March 25th edition of the Wheel (“Prof declines Book TV over Holocaust denier”), you reported on my refusal to appear on C-SPAN’s prestigious book show, Book TV, because the station wanted to juxtapose my presentation with that of Holocaust denier, David Irving.
I have long refused to debate deniers because their entire premise — that there was no Holocaust — is based on lies, fabrications and distortions. Three different courts in London found David Irving to be a liar and a falsifier of truth.
I was surprised, therefore, that your reporter chose to accept Irving’s statement that my claims about his being a Holocaust denier are part of my “obsession” with him and that he is “bored by the Holocaust.”
One should note that it is Irving who went into court on March 4th — for the fourth time — to try to sue me. Just who is obsessed with whom? And regarding his being “bored” by the Holocaust, about two weeks ago Irving appeared in Atlanta and gave a talk devoted almost entirely to the Holocaust.
He is giving the same talk, according to his Web site, throughout the United States. It certainly is a strange thing for him to be doing, if he is indeed bored by the topic. It seems to me that maybe, he is once again, as the court found he has repeatedly done before, fabricating the truth.
Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ph.D.
Dorot Professor of Modern
Jewish and Holocaust Studies
Director, Rabbi Donald Tam
Institute of Jewish Studies
Monday, March 28, 2005
History on Trial reviewed on law.com's Corporate Counsel
There is a review of History on Trial posted at law.com's Corporate Counsel site.
King of Denial
[...]
Lipstadt details her experiences in "History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving," an account of what it's like to be an unwilling defendant in the justice system. In order to keep the focus on Irving, Lipstadt's attorneys decided that she shouldn't take the witness stand herself. But Lipstadt gets to tell her side in "History on Trial."
Lipstadt's Letter to L.A. Jewish Journal
2005-03-25
Claims Unfounded
Professor Barry Steiner’s claims that had I written more extensively about David Irving in “Denying the Holocaust” this lawsuit might have been avoided is completely unfounded (Letters, Mar. 11). He might have better served his argument by offering some proof, however paltry.
Secondly, his question suggests to me that he has neither read “History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving” nor the trial record. He asks: “Is it possible for a Nazi sympathizer or any other political extremist to be a good historian?” It may be, but in Irving’s case, the answer is no.
Judge Gray’s words to describe Irving’s writings about the Holocaust were unambiguous: “perverts,” “distorts,” “misleading,” “unjustified,” “travesty” and “unreal.”
Gray wrote: Irving’s “falsification of the historical record was deliberate and ... motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs, even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence.”
Steiner contends that Irving’s earlier writings are not fraudulent. I urge him to look at the section of “History on Trial” devoted to Irving’s distortions regarding the bombing of Dresden, about which Irving began writing in the 1960s.
He might also check www.hdot.org and read the sections of the trial devoted to the topic. Gray found Irving’s treatment of the evidence about Dresden to be “absurd” and a “travesty.”
Given Irving’s distortions of both the Holocaust and Dresden, I believe any good historian would be skeptical about Irving’s other work and would, before relying on his findings, do what my defense team and I did for this legal battle: follow his footnotes.
Finally, regarding Irving’s ideological views, I again rely on Gray’s words: Irving had “repeatedly crossed the divide between legitimate criticism and prejudiced vilification of the Jewish race and people.”
If Steiner wishes to rely on Irving, that’s his choice. I just worry about what he teaches his students.
Deborah E. Lipstadt
Emory University
Claims Unfounded
Professor Barry Steiner’s claims that had I written more extensively about David Irving in “Denying the Holocaust” this lawsuit might have been avoided is completely unfounded (Letters, Mar. 11). He might have better served his argument by offering some proof, however paltry.
Secondly, his question suggests to me that he has neither read “History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving” nor the trial record. He asks: “Is it possible for a Nazi sympathizer or any other political extremist to be a good historian?” It may be, but in Irving’s case, the answer is no.
Judge Gray’s words to describe Irving’s writings about the Holocaust were unambiguous: “perverts,” “distorts,” “misleading,” “unjustified,” “travesty” and “unreal.”
Gray wrote: Irving’s “falsification of the historical record was deliberate and ... motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs, even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence.”
Steiner contends that Irving’s earlier writings are not fraudulent. I urge him to look at the section of “History on Trial” devoted to Irving’s distortions regarding the bombing of Dresden, about which Irving began writing in the 1960s.
He might also check www.hdot.org and read the sections of the trial devoted to the topic. Gray found Irving’s treatment of the evidence about Dresden to be “absurd” and a “travesty.”
Given Irving’s distortions of both the Holocaust and Dresden, I believe any good historian would be skeptical about Irving’s other work and would, before relying on his findings, do what my defense team and I did for this legal battle: follow his footnotes.
Finally, regarding Irving’s ideological views, I again rely on Gray’s words: Irving had “repeatedly crossed the divide between legitimate criticism and prejudiced vilification of the Jewish race and people.”
If Steiner wishes to rely on Irving, that’s his choice. I just worry about what he teaches his students.
Deborah E. Lipstadt
Emory University
Lipstadt's Letter to N.Y. Times re C-SPAN
March 25, 2005
C-Span's Coverage of a Book About the Holocaust
To the Editor:
Re "C-Span Plan to Cover Talk on Holocaust Is Under Fire" (news article, March 18):
C-Span's statement that it was prevented from covering my new book, "History on Trial," because "Professor Lipstadt closed her book discussions to our cameras," is disingenuous. I told C-Span that I would welcome coverage, but not if my talk was juxtaposed with one by David Irving, a man British courts found to be a Holocaust denier.
C-Span, in the name of "balance," was trying to force me into a debate with a man whose treatment of the history of the Holocaust and Dresden was described by a British judge with these words: "perverts," "distorts," "misleading," "unjustified," "travesty" and "unreal."
Debating deniers is like debating flat-earth theorists. How can one debate someone, on any topic, who deliberately lies and falsifies history?
I would be delighted to appear on C-Span, but not as part of a debate that is no debate.
I note also that C-Span was prepared, until it was hit with a wave of criticism, to put him on, even if I refused. Where's the balance in that?
Deborah E. Lipstadt
Atlanta, March 20, 2005
The writer is a professor of modern Jewish and Holocaust studies at Emory University.
C-Span's Coverage of a Book About the Holocaust
To the Editor:
Re "C-Span Plan to Cover Talk on Holocaust Is Under Fire" (news article, March 18):
C-Span's statement that it was prevented from covering my new book, "History on Trial," because "Professor Lipstadt closed her book discussions to our cameras," is disingenuous. I told C-Span that I would welcome coverage, but not if my talk was juxtaposed with one by David Irving, a man British courts found to be a Holocaust denier.
C-Span, in the name of "balance," was trying to force me into a debate with a man whose treatment of the history of the Holocaust and Dresden was described by a British judge with these words: "perverts," "distorts," "misleading," "unjustified," "travesty" and "unreal."
Debating deniers is like debating flat-earth theorists. How can one debate someone, on any topic, who deliberately lies and falsifies history?
I would be delighted to appear on C-Span, but not as part of a debate that is no debate.
I note also that C-Span was prepared, until it was hit with a wave of criticism, to put him on, even if I refused. Where's the balance in that?
Deborah E. Lipstadt
Atlanta, March 20, 2005
The writer is a professor of modern Jewish and Holocaust studies at Emory University.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
History on Trial reviewed in Atlanta Jewish Times
Lipstadt On Trial
How a court case took over her life
By Laurel Snyder
Special to the Jewish Times
For most of us, life unfolds without a visible outline, organized loosely because we take a new job or move to a strange city based on seemingly random events. However, we expect that our luminaries and history-makers must surely operate along clearer lines. We assume that a president or a scientist is supposed to become a president or a scientist. We believe that the foremost expert on Holocaust revisionism was following a childhood dream
So it’s fascinating, in the first pages of “History on Trial,” to discover the background of how a woman named Deborah Lipstadt became the keeper of Jewish memory. It’s amazing to read the human side of the story, to follow the unusual twists and turns that the Emory professor’s life took, as they led her first to write “Denying the Holocaust,” and then to a courtroom battle with the Holocaust revisionist David Irving, the historian and author who sued Lipstadt for libel in 1995.
Lipstadt explains that when she set out to write “Denying the Holocaust,” she thought she was combating a future problem, diverting a possible tide, rather than correcting an existing dilemma. At that time, she says, “surveys revealed that more people in the United States believed Elvis Presley was alive than believed the Holocaust was a myth.”
So she never expected an attack from a well-known, albeit fringe, historian like Irving. But when the storm came, she found she wasn’t alone. The Jewish community took on the fight and began to raise funds in support of Lipstadt’s legal battle. Her publisher stood behind her and refused to back down under pressure. Still, the case took over her life — and provided us with an interesting read.
The book has an easy flow and a simple structure. Each chapter is broken into short titled sections, as a textbook might be, and it reads quickly as a result, with a metered logic and outlined chronology. The stark language of these headings is effective, sometimes harsh, and often funny. “How many people can a gas van kill?” demands one section. “Innovative Crematoria” proclaims another.
The first half of the book introduces the situation, the characters and all the curious pieces of the puzzle in precise detail, but with a casual tone. As a result, the second half of the book instructs without ever feeling stilted, because we already care about the author and her legal team, as we would care about the characters in a good novel, because we have followed them out of the courtroom, to the dinner table, through countless bottles of wine and conversations.
“History on Trial” strikes an even balance as both memoir and historical document. It somehow weaves the physical and intimate world into the courtroom, while it manages to maintain a vernacular of plain speech, never wandering into gratuitous personal drama or dry courtroom jargon.
The major strength of the book is that it simultaneously reveals the changing psychology of the author, while providing an unadorned window into a complicated legal case. This is not an academic book, but a very personal journal by a complicated woman who also happens to be a fine academic.
The night of too much iced vodka, or a “Rocky-Horror-Picture-Show”-style-production of “The Sound of Music” are welcome diversions for the author as she struggles through a trying time in her life, and they are welcome details for the reader in much the same way, as relief from the tension of the legal history unfolding before us.
The humanity of the story is present to such a degree that Lipstadt is not only a narrator, but a flawed character, learning from her experiences, growing as a person as the book continues. After a difficult but well-handled cross-examination of a witness, Lipstadt catches up with Rampton, her attorney. “ ‘Do you remember when I got angry in Auschwitz because you challenged Robert Jan about why there haven’t been more tests on the gas chambers?’ Rampton took a long drag on his Gitanes and said, ‘I remember. Very well.’ ”
Lipstadt explains, “I wanted to apologize for challenging him. I wanted to tell him how much I appreciated not just his forensic skills, but the passion he brought to this case. Before I could formulate the words he said, ‘I think it’s time for some good wine.’ ”
The character we come to know as Deborah Lipstadt can be best described as frustrated. There is a tension in the book, a sense of impatience. The author is an intense woman, restraining herself constantly so that she can accomplish a massive and important feat, and this tension is compelling. It sweeps the reader into the story and creates a mystery, which is not, “How will the trial end?” but rather, “When will Deborah explode?”
In the case of this trial, as with the Holocaust itself, one question we ask ourselves over and over is “Why did this happen? How could this have happened in a world that makes sense?”
“History on Trial” seems farfetched because it seems impossible that a case of this nature, a case that disputes the Holocaust, would ever come to trial. But though Lipstadt herself finds the trial hard to believe, she reaches for the stabilizing comfort of logic and detail, and walks us through the case with care and precision, so that we are able to understand just how it happened, though we will never be able to comprehend why.
“History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, ” by Deborah E. Lipstadt; Harper Collins; 346 pages; $25.95
How a court case took over her life
By Laurel Snyder
Special to the Jewish Times
For most of us, life unfolds without a visible outline, organized loosely because we take a new job or move to a strange city based on seemingly random events. However, we expect that our luminaries and history-makers must surely operate along clearer lines. We assume that a president or a scientist is supposed to become a president or a scientist. We believe that the foremost expert on Holocaust revisionism was following a childhood dream
So it’s fascinating, in the first pages of “History on Trial,” to discover the background of how a woman named Deborah Lipstadt became the keeper of Jewish memory. It’s amazing to read the human side of the story, to follow the unusual twists and turns that the Emory professor’s life took, as they led her first to write “Denying the Holocaust,” and then to a courtroom battle with the Holocaust revisionist David Irving, the historian and author who sued Lipstadt for libel in 1995.
Lipstadt explains that when she set out to write “Denying the Holocaust,” she thought she was combating a future problem, diverting a possible tide, rather than correcting an existing dilemma. At that time, she says, “surveys revealed that more people in the United States believed Elvis Presley was alive than believed the Holocaust was a myth.”
So she never expected an attack from a well-known, albeit fringe, historian like Irving. But when the storm came, she found she wasn’t alone. The Jewish community took on the fight and began to raise funds in support of Lipstadt’s legal battle. Her publisher stood behind her and refused to back down under pressure. Still, the case took over her life — and provided us with an interesting read.
The book has an easy flow and a simple structure. Each chapter is broken into short titled sections, as a textbook might be, and it reads quickly as a result, with a metered logic and outlined chronology. The stark language of these headings is effective, sometimes harsh, and often funny. “How many people can a gas van kill?” demands one section. “Innovative Crematoria” proclaims another.
The first half of the book introduces the situation, the characters and all the curious pieces of the puzzle in precise detail, but with a casual tone. As a result, the second half of the book instructs without ever feeling stilted, because we already care about the author and her legal team, as we would care about the characters in a good novel, because we have followed them out of the courtroom, to the dinner table, through countless bottles of wine and conversations.
“History on Trial” strikes an even balance as both memoir and historical document. It somehow weaves the physical and intimate world into the courtroom, while it manages to maintain a vernacular of plain speech, never wandering into gratuitous personal drama or dry courtroom jargon.
The major strength of the book is that it simultaneously reveals the changing psychology of the author, while providing an unadorned window into a complicated legal case. This is not an academic book, but a very personal journal by a complicated woman who also happens to be a fine academic.
The night of too much iced vodka, or a “Rocky-Horror-Picture-Show”-style-production of “The Sound of Music” are welcome diversions for the author as she struggles through a trying time in her life, and they are welcome details for the reader in much the same way, as relief from the tension of the legal history unfolding before us.
The humanity of the story is present to such a degree that Lipstadt is not only a narrator, but a flawed character, learning from her experiences, growing as a person as the book continues. After a difficult but well-handled cross-examination of a witness, Lipstadt catches up with Rampton, her attorney. “ ‘Do you remember when I got angry in Auschwitz because you challenged Robert Jan about why there haven’t been more tests on the gas chambers?’ Rampton took a long drag on his Gitanes and said, ‘I remember. Very well.’ ”
Lipstadt explains, “I wanted to apologize for challenging him. I wanted to tell him how much I appreciated not just his forensic skills, but the passion he brought to this case. Before I could formulate the words he said, ‘I think it’s time for some good wine.’ ”
The character we come to know as Deborah Lipstadt can be best described as frustrated. There is a tension in the book, a sense of impatience. The author is an intense woman, restraining herself constantly so that she can accomplish a massive and important feat, and this tension is compelling. It sweeps the reader into the story and creates a mystery, which is not, “How will the trial end?” but rather, “When will Deborah explode?”
In the case of this trial, as with the Holocaust itself, one question we ask ourselves over and over is “Why did this happen? How could this have happened in a world that makes sense?”
“History on Trial” seems farfetched because it seems impossible that a case of this nature, a case that disputes the Holocaust, would ever come to trial. But though Lipstadt herself finds the trial hard to believe, she reaches for the stabilizing comfort of logic and detail, and walks us through the case with care and precision, so that we are able to understand just how it happened, though we will never be able to comprehend why.
“History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, ” by Deborah E. Lipstadt; Harper Collins; 346 pages; $25.95
Friday, March 25, 2005
"C-SPAN should know better" - Jewish News Weekly
Laurel Leff is an associate professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University. In an article made available by The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, published in the Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, he writes:
With Holocaust denier, C-SPAN should know better
Controversy has erupted over C-SPAN’s plan to broadcast a speech by a Holocaust denier to “balance” a broadcast of remarks by a Holocaust scholar.
“Balance” is a cherished concept for journalists, but sometimes it can run amok. Consider the textbook, “The Reporter and the News,” a 1935 volume that was then used to train American journalists. The book offers a startling example of a news story that needs to be “balanced,” that demands that “both sides in a controversial matter be given a chance to have their position stated.”
“A case in point,” the textbook solemnly declares, is “the Jewish persecution by the German Nazi Government.” It involves a struggle “between rival groups, each of which is strong in its own right, and each of which is anxious to get as much propaganda across to newspaper readers as is possible.” In other words, every claim by the “strong” German Jews had to be balanced with an equal response from the Nazi regime — even though Jews at that point were being subjected to German-government sanctioned or orchestrated beatings, imprisonment in concentration camps, property confiscations, boycotts of their businesses, and restrictions on their ability to practice their professions.
Lest journalists smugly assume we’ve gotten past such insidious examples of the need for “balance,” C-SPAN reminds us we haven’t. The cable network planned to show a March 16 speech by Emory University Professor Deborah Lipstadt discussing her experiences as the defendant in a libel suit brought by Holocaust denier David Irving. Irving sued Lipstadt for statements she wrote about him in an earlier book. A British court dismissed Irving’s suit against Lipstadt in 2000, concluding that he deliberately misrepresented historical evidence.
Still, C-SPAN decided that it couldn’t show Lipstadt’s speech without balancing it with Irving’s position. As a C-SPAN spokeswoman told The New York Times, the network decided to tape an Irving lecture in order to cover “the plaintiff’s side of the trial.” When Lipstadt learned that C-SPAN planned to include Irving’s talk, she refused to allow the network to tape her speech. At first, C-SPAN said it would show Irving’s lecture anyway, but it is now debating what to do.
Balance in journalism is best understood as a philosophy, not a methodology. It should be a guiding principle that leads journalists to delve deeply into any story rather than accept the most readily available version of an event. But too often journalists transform this worthy goal into a mechanistic exercise with consequences that can range from merely sloppy to downright dangerous, as the C-SPAN example shows. Journalists identify the two sides of the story, seek out a comment from one side, then the other, include them both, and call it a day.
But this ode to impartiality masks the many subjective judgments the journalist has made along the way: defining “the sides” of the story; limiting the possibilities to two sides when many more positions exist; discounting some positions as unsupported by evidence; identifying those who can speak credibly on a topic and excluding those who can’t. That means it’s rarely obvious or automatic that journalists have to present “both sides” in order to be impartial. And, in fact, they often don’t. For example, not many news organizations felt obligated after 9/11 to balance victims’ stories with those of al-Qaida supporters.
Some journalists seem to resort to a mechanistic view of balance out of laziness — it frees them from the hard but necessary work of sifting through contradictory information — or out of ignorance of the underlying event. In the case of the Nazi persecution of the Jews in 1930s, both sides weren’t equally strong or equally worthy, and for the 1935 journalism textbook to present them as such did a disservice to the suffering of the Jews and to the truth. In explaining the history of the Holocaust, there aren’t two sides
The Lipstadt-Irving episode is a bit more complicated because it involves a court case in which there were indeed two sides. But what the British court in fact decided was that Lipstadt and Irving didn’t have equal claims to the truth, they didn’t have an equal right to have their sides aired. Lipstadt could call Irving a Holocaust denier who distorted historical facts without being liable under Britain’s defamation laws because that’s what he was.
C-SPAN is now deciding whether it will air Irving’s lecture alone. That would be the worse possible outcome. It would be almost as bad, however, if the controversy led C-SPAN to avoid broadcasting anything about the Holocaust rather than risk another ruckus. Journalists are always making decisions about the information worth presenting to the public — and they are in fact decisions, not obligations. As long as they acknowledge their choices and can defend them, journalists should be able to treat some views as worthy of being presented and some as not. In C-SPAN’s case, it’s not even a close call.
With Holocaust denier, C-SPAN should know better
Controversy has erupted over C-SPAN’s plan to broadcast a speech by a Holocaust denier to “balance” a broadcast of remarks by a Holocaust scholar.
“Balance” is a cherished concept for journalists, but sometimes it can run amok. Consider the textbook, “The Reporter and the News,” a 1935 volume that was then used to train American journalists. The book offers a startling example of a news story that needs to be “balanced,” that demands that “both sides in a controversial matter be given a chance to have their position stated.”
“A case in point,” the textbook solemnly declares, is “the Jewish persecution by the German Nazi Government.” It involves a struggle “between rival groups, each of which is strong in its own right, and each of which is anxious to get as much propaganda across to newspaper readers as is possible.” In other words, every claim by the “strong” German Jews had to be balanced with an equal response from the Nazi regime — even though Jews at that point were being subjected to German-government sanctioned or orchestrated beatings, imprisonment in concentration camps, property confiscations, boycotts of their businesses, and restrictions on their ability to practice their professions.
Lest journalists smugly assume we’ve gotten past such insidious examples of the need for “balance,” C-SPAN reminds us we haven’t. The cable network planned to show a March 16 speech by Emory University Professor Deborah Lipstadt discussing her experiences as the defendant in a libel suit brought by Holocaust denier David Irving. Irving sued Lipstadt for statements she wrote about him in an earlier book. A British court dismissed Irving’s suit against Lipstadt in 2000, concluding that he deliberately misrepresented historical evidence.
Still, C-SPAN decided that it couldn’t show Lipstadt’s speech without balancing it with Irving’s position. As a C-SPAN spokeswoman told The New York Times, the network decided to tape an Irving lecture in order to cover “the plaintiff’s side of the trial.” When Lipstadt learned that C-SPAN planned to include Irving’s talk, she refused to allow the network to tape her speech. At first, C-SPAN said it would show Irving’s lecture anyway, but it is now debating what to do.
Balance in journalism is best understood as a philosophy, not a methodology. It should be a guiding principle that leads journalists to delve deeply into any story rather than accept the most readily available version of an event. But too often journalists transform this worthy goal into a mechanistic exercise with consequences that can range from merely sloppy to downright dangerous, as the C-SPAN example shows. Journalists identify the two sides of the story, seek out a comment from one side, then the other, include them both, and call it a day.
But this ode to impartiality masks the many subjective judgments the journalist has made along the way: defining “the sides” of the story; limiting the possibilities to two sides when many more positions exist; discounting some positions as unsupported by evidence; identifying those who can speak credibly on a topic and excluding those who can’t. That means it’s rarely obvious or automatic that journalists have to present “both sides” in order to be impartial. And, in fact, they often don’t. For example, not many news organizations felt obligated after 9/11 to balance victims’ stories with those of al-Qaida supporters.
Some journalists seem to resort to a mechanistic view of balance out of laziness — it frees them from the hard but necessary work of sifting through contradictory information — or out of ignorance of the underlying event. In the case of the Nazi persecution of the Jews in 1930s, both sides weren’t equally strong or equally worthy, and for the 1935 journalism textbook to present them as such did a disservice to the suffering of the Jews and to the truth. In explaining the history of the Holocaust, there aren’t two sides
The Lipstadt-Irving episode is a bit more complicated because it involves a court case in which there were indeed two sides. But what the British court in fact decided was that Lipstadt and Irving didn’t have equal claims to the truth, they didn’t have an equal right to have their sides aired. Lipstadt could call Irving a Holocaust denier who distorted historical facts without being liable under Britain’s defamation laws because that’s what he was.
C-SPAN is now deciding whether it will air Irving’s lecture alone. That would be the worse possible outcome. It would be almost as bad, however, if the controversy led C-SPAN to avoid broadcasting anything about the Holocaust rather than risk another ruckus. Journalists are always making decisions about the information worth presenting to the public — and they are in fact decisions, not obligations. As long as they acknowledge their choices and can defend them, journalists should be able to treat some views as worthy of being presented and some as not. In C-SPAN’s case, it’s not even a close call.
JTA's "Breaking News" on C-SPAN controversy
JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) has the following brief report in today's "Breaking News" section:
Petition blasts C-SPAN on denier
More than 500 scholars signed a petition protesting C-SPAN’s decision to broadcast a lecture by a Holocaust denier.
The petition was organized by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in response to the U.S. cable network’s decision to broadcast a talk by David Irving alongside a lecture by Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt. Lipstadt later rescinded permission for C-Span to tape her talk.
Irving lost a lawsuit against Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, in 2000, after Lipstadt accused Irving of being a Holocaust denier.
“The Holocaust is not a topic with ‘opposing views.’ It is a historical fact. Giving a platform to a Holocaust-denier to ‘balance’ a Holocaust historian is as outrageous as giving a platform to the Flat Earth Society to balance a speech by an astronomer,” Wyman Institute Director Rafael Medoff said.
Petition blasts C-SPAN on denier
More than 500 scholars signed a petition protesting C-SPAN’s decision to broadcast a lecture by a Holocaust denier.
The petition was organized by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in response to the U.S. cable network’s decision to broadcast a talk by David Irving alongside a lecture by Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt. Lipstadt later rescinded permission for C-Span to tape her talk.
Irving lost a lawsuit against Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, in 2000, after Lipstadt accused Irving of being a Holocaust denier.
“The Holocaust is not a topic with ‘opposing views.’ It is a historical fact. Giving a platform to a Holocaust-denier to ‘balance’ a Holocaust historian is as outrageous as giving a platform to the Flat Earth Society to balance a speech by an astronomer,” Wyman Institute Director Rafael Medoff said.
AlterNet on Denial, C-SPAN ... and Ward Churchill
Bill Weinberg has weighed in on the C-SPAN controversy - and on Ward Churchill. Some excerpts:
Holocaust Denial, C-SPAN and Ward Churchill
C-SPAN is attempting to 'balance' a Holocaust studies professor with a denier; Ward Churchill's stab at 'moral equivalence' falls flat.
Over 200 historians have signed a petition in protest of C-SPAN's plan to pair coverage of a lecture by Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Holocaust studies at Georgia's Emory University, with one by David Irving, the notorious Holocaust revisionist. Irving, author of Hitler's War and other books, sued Lipstadt in his native U.K. after she called him out as a revisionist in her own book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory British courts dismissed the suit in 2000, finding that Irving deliberately misrepresented historical evidence. Lipstadt's book on the case, History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, has just been published.
[...]
In a 1991 speech, Irving told his audience that "more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz." This is the kind of voice to which C-SPAN is about to loan credibility.
In Lipstadt's own blog, History on Trial, she notes that another one of her prominent critics is supposed American Indian scholar Ward Churchill, who recently gained notoreity by calling 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns."
[...]
[...]Churchill allows his own valid critique to be dismissed as the ravings of a nut. Recognition that the industrial destruction of indigenous lands and culture in the western hemisphere constitutes genocide (as defined under international law) can be lumped in with the pseudo-history of an Irving – or (more to the point) Churchill's own witless cheer-leading for mass murder in the 9/11 attacks.
[...]
So a nuanced sense of history is called for to really make sense of these issues – an unlikely prospect in an atmosphere degraded by cynicism and fealty to shallow sound-bites.
Meanwhile, if C-SPAN capitulates and drops the Irving segment, it will merely confirm the perception in the growing ranks of Jew-haters that "the Jews" control the media. Unless some honest and courageous voices are brought to the debate quickly, this affair will be a lose/lose no matter how we slice it.
The Emory Wheel on C-SPAN Controversy
Methinks that the student who wrote the article that appears in today's Emory Wheel could have learned some lessons from the editors at the San Antonio Express News [see previous post]. In doing her "homework", the writer - perhaps seeking "balance" - evidently spoke to Irving. Here are some excerpts:
Prof declines Book TV over Holocaust denier
Director of the Institute of Jewish Studies and Professor of Jewish and Holocaust Studies Deborah Lipstadt has again come at odds with the man who sued her five years ago for portraying him as a Holocaust denier.
Lipstadt planned to see a feature of her book about this court battle on the March 16 broadcast of C-SPAN’s “Book TV.” She granted C-SPAN permission to tape a speech she gave that day at Harvard Hillel, a Jewish organization at Harvard University.
But Lipstadt cancelled these plans when C-SPAN told her that a broadcast of English historical writer David Irving, an expert on the Hitler regime who she has called “a liar and a falsifier of history,” would be stacked with hers on the show.
According to Lipstadt, Irving’s claims that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz and that Adolf Hitler had no role in the Final Solution, among other things, implicate him as a Holocaust denier.
But Irving said such notions are part of Lipstadt’s “obsession” with him.
“I am not a Holocaust denier,” Irving said. “I am bored by the Holocaust and I think most of the world is, too.”
[...]
After a three-month trial, a British judge ruled in favor of Lipstadt, finding that testimony and documents that pictured Irving as an anti-Semite who distorted facts gave an apt portrayal.
Lipstadt said C-SPAN’s decision to “balance” her views with those of Irving was illogical.
“It would be like airing someone who wrote on slavery and someone who said slavery didn’t happen,” Lipstadt said.
Lipstadt refused C-SPAN coverage of her speech, which was based on her book History on Trial: My Day in Court With David Irving. However, C-SPAN taped a recent speech Irving gave at the Landmark Diner in Atlanta.
According to Irving, [...]
[...]
“[C-SPAN] have been totally uncommunicative,” Lipstadt said. “I have no idea what their plans are.”
Lipstadt said C-SPAN had planned to show Irving’s Atlanta speech on the show with or without her appearance.
“He didn’t have to be balanced, but I did,” she said.
San Antonio Express-News weighs in on C-SPAN issue
Here are some excerpts from an excellent editorial in today's issue of the San Antonio Express-News:
C-SPAN loses its sense of balance and reality
Balance is a watchword in journalism. In reporting the news, the media's goal is to present competing views of contentious issues. In commenting about the news, editorial pages seek diverse viewpoints.
Sometimes, however, the commitment to achieve balance can conflict with an even greater obligation to report truthfully and keep commentary within the bounds of reasonably established facts.
The recent decision of C-SPAN to counterpose a world-renowned Holocaust historian with an internationally discredited crackpot demonstrates how a blind commitment to balance can lead to a gross distortion of reality.
[...]
The British Royal High Court ruled against Irving. In his verdict, Justice Charles Gray determined Irving had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence."
Nevertheless, C-SPAN — under the premise of presenting balance — decided to pair Lipstadt's Harvard lecture with one by Irving on March 12 at the Landmark Diner in Atlanta.
Lipstadt declined to participate in C-SPAN's balancing act gone mad. Her lecture will not appear on "Book TV."
Propaganda can no more balance history than lies can balance the truth. C-SPAN's mistaken sense of balance represents an outrageous endorsement of hate-filled drivel.
History on Trial Reviewed in Cleveland Jewish News
Michael Berenbaum's review of History on Trial has been published in this week's Cleveland Jewish News.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
More than 500 Historians Protest to C-SPAN
The Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies has issued a follow-up to their March 17 petition.
More Than 500 Historians Protest C-Span Broadcast of Holocaust- Denier
More than 500 prominent historians and other scholars have now signed the petition protesting C-SPAN's plan to broadcast a lecture by Holocaust-denier David Irving on its program "Book TV."
The latest signatories include such prominent scholars as New Republic editor-in-chief Dr. Martin Peretz, Harvard Law School Prof. Alan Dershowitz, and Dr. Michael Walzer; Eric Foner, Simon Schama, and Istvan Deak, of Columbia; David Brion Davis, Harold Bloom, and Paul Kennedy of Yale; and Charles Maier and Richard Pipes of Harvard;
-- Pulitzer prize winners David Levering Lewis, Jack Rakove, and Lloyd Schwartz;
-- Media notables Marvin Kalb and Ben Stein;
-- Holocaust scholars Randolph Braham, Daniel Goldhagen, and Omer Bartov;
-- Leading Jewish historians Jonathan Sarna, Yosef Yerushalmi, Robert Chazan, and Deborah Dash Moore
...as well as historians from England, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Israel, and Japan.
Another 330 scholars signed the petition this week, following on the heels of 203 historians who signed it last week. The petition was organized by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, which publishes the only annual report on Holocaust-denial around the world.
[...]
The signatories on the first installment of the Wyman Institute petition, which was sent to C-SPAN on March 17, included some of the most noted historians of the Holocaust, such as Christopher Browning, Richard Breitman, Deborah Dwork, Ronald Zweig, and David S. Wyman. (For a list of those initial 203 signatories, please go to http://www.WymanInstitute.org)
The text of the letter and the complete list of 330 signatories on the second petition follow
[...]
History on Trial reviewed in The Jewish Week
New York's The Jewish Week combines a review of History on Trial with the C-SPAN storm story:
(03/25/2005)
No Denying This Victory
Deborah Lipstadt’s new book tells the story of refuting a libel accusation by a Holocaust denier — but you won’t see her on C-SPAN.
Sandee Brawarsky - Jewish Week Book Critic
Deborah Lipstadt did something few authors of new books would dare: She rejected an invitation to discuss her work on national television on a show geared to serious book lovers.
Lipstadt, the author of “History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving” (Ecco), was scheduled to appear last week on C-SPAN’s “Book TV,” but later refused to let the network tape her appearance at the Harvard Hillel when she learned that the show was planning to feature a talk by David Irving with her remarks.
“This is a man who is a Holocaust denier, who was found to be a liar and a falsifier of history,” she said last weekend in an interview on the Upper West Side.
Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish and Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, explained that she would have no problem debating someone with a position diametrically opposed to her own, but this is a case where she had been asked to speak to someone with no grounding in truth.
“The producers would never ask Skip [Henry Louis] Gates to debate someone who said that slavery never happened. They wouldn’t dignify that position,” she said.
For Lipstadt and the more than 200 historians who signed a petition protesting C-SPAN’s decision, the notion of editorial “balance” doesn’t apply here.
“Falsehoods cannot balance the truth,” states the document, spearheaded by the David S. Wyman Institute of Holocaust Studies. The signatures were gathered in less than 48 hours; others have signed on since the petition was submitted.
“History on Trial” is an account of Lipstadt’s 2000 trial before the British High Court of Justice, where she was accused by Irving of libel in her previous book, “Denying the Holocaust.” In that book she identified Irving, a prolific writer on World War II-related subjects, as a Holocaust denier who repeatedly misrepresented history.
Unlike the American court system, where the accuser has to prove the charges false, British law places the burden on the accused, who must demonstrate that the statements considered libelous are in fact true.
Lipstadt had the options of trying to settle with Irving or going to trial. Given the nature of the accusations, however, she said there was no choice. Lipstadt ultimately raised $1.5 million for her defense.
The case received international press coverage. Irving served as his own lawyer, while Lipstadt did not speak at all. Her witnesses were historians and other experts involved in documenting Nazi genocide. Lipstadt’s legal team wanted to rely on documents, so it did not call any survivors to testify.
For the five years before the case went to trial and during the trial itself, Lipstadt kept a journal of developments and also her impressions. About six months before the trial, she realized that there was a book to be written. At first she thought about a joint venture, where members of her legal team would contribute a chapter. But Lipstadt realized later that she had a lot to say, especially since she would not be speaking at the trial or to the press.
“It’s my medium,” she said of writing. The director of Emory’s Institute for Jewish Studies, Lipstadt is also the author of “Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust 1933-1945” and many articles.
A compelling book, “History on Trial” is memoir and courtroom drama, a work of historical and legal import. Lipstadt succeeds in drawing textured portraits of the lawyers working on her case, as well as the historians, the judge and Irving, who comes across more as a clown than one to be taken seriously. Her narrative powerfully details the trial, weaving forensic and historical details and noting when a certain barrister would tug at his wig.
As a memoir, there are scant personal details, and Lipstadt admittedly is a very private person, even though she is frequently in the limelight. She is not, as many might assume, the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Her father left Germany before the Third Reich and her mother, whose family came from Poland, was born in Canada.
Her feisty, determined personality comes through in the few stories she tells of her years growing up in Manhattan and Far Rockaway, at summer camps and at college. In early 1967, while studying at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, she was upset that Jews could not visit the holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem, so she took a circuitous route to do so, traveling to Greece to obtain a new passport, then to Beirut, Damascus and Jordan, to the Old City and then through the Mandelbaum Gate back to Israel.
A person Lipstadt credits as being the seminal influence on her life, after her parents, is Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, who led the Far Rockaway synagogue where her family belonged, before he became chancellor of Bar-Ilan University. She was impressed with his knowledge of Judaism and the contemporary world, and of his efforts to reach out in intra- and inter-religious dialogue.
“Long before I knew precisely what a role model was, I knew that I wanted to be like him,” she wrote.
Featured in the book are two brief essays by outspoken defenders of free speech: an introduction by Anthony Lewis and an afterword by Alan Dershowitz. Although these two might often hold opposing viewpoints, here they provide affirming bookends.
Throughout the trial, Lipstadt remained anxious and cautious in her attitudes about potential outcomes; she was “living on the edge” with raw emotions.
“Not losing was critical,” she said. “If we lost it would have been a disaster, even if we said it was a legal fluke.”
For the two weeks between the closing arguments and the announcement of the judge’s decision, Lipstadt returned home to Atlanta, where she did what she did every year –– prepared for Passover and made a seder.
Ultimately she was confident that she would win, but was worried that the judge might have tried to be evenhanded in his decision or been unclear in a way that enabled Irving to further twist the truth. But the decision was clear-cut: The judge declared it “incontrovertible that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier” and that he “repeatedly crossed the divide between legitimate criticism and prejudiced vilification of the Jewish race and people.”
In conversation, Lipstadt plays down the heroism attributed to her by Holocaust survivors and other observers of the trial. Many survivors thanked her profusely for protecting their history.
“It all made me very uncomfortable,” she said. “I’m not a person who’s averse to being thanked. I’m not so humble.”
The trial ended at just about this time of year on the Jewish calendar. The following Shabbat, she attended synagogue in London, the week of Parashat Zachor, the Sabbath of Remembrance. Lipstadt says she stood instinctively when the additional reading, recalling the acts of Amalek, was read.
“I felt like I had really fought for that memory,” she said.
A few days later, back in synagogue for the reading of the Megillah for Purim, Lipstadt was struck by the lines in the text when Mordechai tells Esther that perhaps she has attained her royal position for just the crisis they faced.
“I heard that ringing in my ears. I don’t know for what reason people are put anywhere, and a lot of people do bigger chesed [acts of compassion and lovingkindness] that we don’t hear about,” she said. “I got a chance to do a thing that touched a lot of people. I didn’t seek it but I feel privileged, and now I have a voice and a responsibility to use that voice.”
In January, Lipstadt traveled to Poland as part of the presidential delegation for the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. She recalled looking out at the survivors and realizing that the vast majority won’t be around for the 70th anniversary.
“The torch of memory, or witness, is being passed from the survivors to the historians,” she said.
Since January, she has been an active blogger (lipstadt.blogspot.com), posting notes and recording impressions of the Poland trip as well as, more recently, the C-SPAN controversy. Until this week, readers were able to post their responses, but she halted that because the site was attracting a number of Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites. Lipstadt didn’t want to afford them a platform.
About blogging she said, “There’s always something going on to keep things interesting.”
(03/25/2005)
No Denying This Victory
Deborah Lipstadt’s new book tells the story of refuting a libel accusation by a Holocaust denier — but you won’t see her on C-SPAN.
Sandee Brawarsky - Jewish Week Book Critic
Deborah Lipstadt did something few authors of new books would dare: She rejected an invitation to discuss her work on national television on a show geared to serious book lovers.
Lipstadt, the author of “History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving” (Ecco), was scheduled to appear last week on C-SPAN’s “Book TV,” but later refused to let the network tape her appearance at the Harvard Hillel when she learned that the show was planning to feature a talk by David Irving with her remarks.
“This is a man who is a Holocaust denier, who was found to be a liar and a falsifier of history,” she said last weekend in an interview on the Upper West Side.
Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish and Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, explained that she would have no problem debating someone with a position diametrically opposed to her own, but this is a case where she had been asked to speak to someone with no grounding in truth.
“The producers would never ask Skip [Henry Louis] Gates to debate someone who said that slavery never happened. They wouldn’t dignify that position,” she said.
For Lipstadt and the more than 200 historians who signed a petition protesting C-SPAN’s decision, the notion of editorial “balance” doesn’t apply here.
“Falsehoods cannot balance the truth,” states the document, spearheaded by the David S. Wyman Institute of Holocaust Studies. The signatures were gathered in less than 48 hours; others have signed on since the petition was submitted.
“History on Trial” is an account of Lipstadt’s 2000 trial before the British High Court of Justice, where she was accused by Irving of libel in her previous book, “Denying the Holocaust.” In that book she identified Irving, a prolific writer on World War II-related subjects, as a Holocaust denier who repeatedly misrepresented history.
Unlike the American court system, where the accuser has to prove the charges false, British law places the burden on the accused, who must demonstrate that the statements considered libelous are in fact true.
Lipstadt had the options of trying to settle with Irving or going to trial. Given the nature of the accusations, however, she said there was no choice. Lipstadt ultimately raised $1.5 million for her defense.
The case received international press coverage. Irving served as his own lawyer, while Lipstadt did not speak at all. Her witnesses were historians and other experts involved in documenting Nazi genocide. Lipstadt’s legal team wanted to rely on documents, so it did not call any survivors to testify.
For the five years before the case went to trial and during the trial itself, Lipstadt kept a journal of developments and also her impressions. About six months before the trial, she realized that there was a book to be written. At first she thought about a joint venture, where members of her legal team would contribute a chapter. But Lipstadt realized later that she had a lot to say, especially since she would not be speaking at the trial or to the press.
“It’s my medium,” she said of writing. The director of Emory’s Institute for Jewish Studies, Lipstadt is also the author of “Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust 1933-1945” and many articles.
A compelling book, “History on Trial” is memoir and courtroom drama, a work of historical and legal import. Lipstadt succeeds in drawing textured portraits of the lawyers working on her case, as well as the historians, the judge and Irving, who comes across more as a clown than one to be taken seriously. Her narrative powerfully details the trial, weaving forensic and historical details and noting when a certain barrister would tug at his wig.
As a memoir, there are scant personal details, and Lipstadt admittedly is a very private person, even though she is frequently in the limelight. She is not, as many might assume, the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Her father left Germany before the Third Reich and her mother, whose family came from Poland, was born in Canada.
Her feisty, determined personality comes through in the few stories she tells of her years growing up in Manhattan and Far Rockaway, at summer camps and at college. In early 1967, while studying at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, she was upset that Jews could not visit the holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem, so she took a circuitous route to do so, traveling to Greece to obtain a new passport, then to Beirut, Damascus and Jordan, to the Old City and then through the Mandelbaum Gate back to Israel.
A person Lipstadt credits as being the seminal influence on her life, after her parents, is Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, who led the Far Rockaway synagogue where her family belonged, before he became chancellor of Bar-Ilan University. She was impressed with his knowledge of Judaism and the contemporary world, and of his efforts to reach out in intra- and inter-religious dialogue.
“Long before I knew precisely what a role model was, I knew that I wanted to be like him,” she wrote.
Featured in the book are two brief essays by outspoken defenders of free speech: an introduction by Anthony Lewis and an afterword by Alan Dershowitz. Although these two might often hold opposing viewpoints, here they provide affirming bookends.
Throughout the trial, Lipstadt remained anxious and cautious in her attitudes about potential outcomes; she was “living on the edge” with raw emotions.
“Not losing was critical,” she said. “If we lost it would have been a disaster, even if we said it was a legal fluke.”
For the two weeks between the closing arguments and the announcement of the judge’s decision, Lipstadt returned home to Atlanta, where she did what she did every year –– prepared for Passover and made a seder.
Ultimately she was confident that she would win, but was worried that the judge might have tried to be evenhanded in his decision or been unclear in a way that enabled Irving to further twist the truth. But the decision was clear-cut: The judge declared it “incontrovertible that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier” and that he “repeatedly crossed the divide between legitimate criticism and prejudiced vilification of the Jewish race and people.”
In conversation, Lipstadt plays down the heroism attributed to her by Holocaust survivors and other observers of the trial. Many survivors thanked her profusely for protecting their history.
“It all made me very uncomfortable,” she said. “I’m not a person who’s averse to being thanked. I’m not so humble.”
The trial ended at just about this time of year on the Jewish calendar. The following Shabbat, she attended synagogue in London, the week of Parashat Zachor, the Sabbath of Remembrance. Lipstadt says she stood instinctively when the additional reading, recalling the acts of Amalek, was read.
“I felt like I had really fought for that memory,” she said.
A few days later, back in synagogue for the reading of the Megillah for Purim, Lipstadt was struck by the lines in the text when Mordechai tells Esther that perhaps she has attained her royal position for just the crisis they faced.
“I heard that ringing in my ears. I don’t know for what reason people are put anywhere, and a lot of people do bigger chesed [acts of compassion and lovingkindness] that we don’t hear about,” she said. “I got a chance to do a thing that touched a lot of people. I didn’t seek it but I feel privileged, and now I have a voice and a responsibility to use that voice.”
In January, Lipstadt traveled to Poland as part of the presidential delegation for the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. She recalled looking out at the survivors and realizing that the vast majority won’t be around for the 70th anniversary.
“The torch of memory, or witness, is being passed from the survivors to the historians,” she said.
Since January, she has been an active blogger (lipstadt.blogspot.com), posting notes and recording impressions of the Poland trip as well as, more recently, the C-SPAN controversy. Until this week, readers were able to post their responses, but she halted that because the site was attracting a number of Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites. Lipstadt didn’t want to afford them a platform.
About blogging she said, “There’s always something going on to keep things interesting.”
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
C-SPAN Controversy cited in Columbia Journalism Review Daily
In an article entitled Propaganda Clothed as Critique, CJR Daily cites the C-SPAN controversy as an example of equivalence run amok:
A recent incident concerning C-SPAN illustrated to what absurd lengths the quest for equivalence at all costs can lead. The network announced that it would balance its coverage of a lecture by a professor of Holocaust studies named Deborah E. Lipstadt with a speech by David Irving -- who sued Lipstadt for calling him a Holocaust denier. A British court found for Lipstadt, finding that Irving was anti-Semitic, racist, and given to misrepresenting and misinterpreting historical evidence. "Falsifiers of history cannot 'balance' histories," said a petition sent to C-SPAN that was signed by more than 200 historians. "Falsehoods cannot 'balance' the truth."
New York Times issues correction to C-SPAN article
Correction: March 23, 2005, Wednesday:
An article on Friday about C-Span's plans to broadcast a speech by David Irving, who has argued that Hitler was not fully responsible for the mass murder of Jews, referred incorrectly to the disposition of a libel suit he filed against Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University, for calling him a Holocaust denier. The British High Court found for Professor Lipstadt; the case was not dismissed.
An article on Friday about C-Span's plans to broadcast a speech by David Irving, who has argued that Hitler was not fully responsible for the mass murder of Jews, referred incorrectly to the disposition of a libel suit he filed against Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University, for calling him a Holocaust denier. The British High Court found for Professor Lipstadt; the case was not dismissed.
Publisher's Lunch on C-Span Controversy
From Publisher's Lunch the publishing industry's "daily essential read," (daily circ. 30,000) which reports on stories of interest to the professional trade book community
Historian Denies C-SPAN for Wanting to Air Holocaust Denier
Historian Denies C-SPAN for Wanting to Air Holocaust Denier
C-SPAN is taking flak from a number of sides over their plan to give air time to Holocaust denier David Irving. The original excuse for the broadcast was that Irving would "balance" a planned airing of a lecture by Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt at Harvard. Lipstadt prevailed in a lengthy libel case brought against her by Irving in the UK, which is the subject of her new book HISTORY ON TRIAL.
Lipstadt explains in a NY Sun column today: "My book was a personal account of the experience of having to defend the truth of what I wrote. The opportunity to have an hour to discuss it on C-span was something I looked forward to, until I learned that they were intending to juxtapose my talk with one by Mr. Irving. In essence, they were planning to create the debate between us, a debate I have long refused to have. I consider debating Holocaust deniers to be the equivalent of asking NASA scientists to debate those who argue that the moon landing actually happened on a sound stage in Nevada."
Though Lipstadt withdrew permission to have her Harvard speech aired, C-SPAN told her they would broadcast a piece with Irving anyway. "When I protested to C-span, they insisted that they broadcast all opinions [Holocaust denial is an 'opinion'?] and that they broadcast liars all the time, after all, a C-span producer told me, 'they put on members of Congress,' - thus equating the U.S. Congress with bigoted liars. I cannot imagine them 'balancing' an appearance by a specialist on African-American history with someone who says slavery was a pleasant experience."
Honest Reporting Update on C-SPAN controversy
In their March 23 communique, Honest Reporting provides an update to their readers:
UPDATE: C-SPAN'S BOOK-TV
Last week's HonestReporting communique noted that the cable network C-SPAN, for its BookTV program, insisted upon airing Holocaust denier David Irving alongside Holocaust scholar Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, to provide what C-SPAN termed 'balance' on the topic. When Prof. Lipstadt refused to be cast side-by-side with Irving, C-SPAN cancelled the scheduled program.
Two days after the HR critique, The New York Times ran an article on this story, noting that more than 200 prominent historians from colleges across the U.S. have signed a petition protesting C-SPAN's decision. The petition was organized by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and may be viewed here.
Lipstadt's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor
Seems that Fox doesn't archive the show, but here is the Segment Summary of O'Reilly's March 21 interview with Prof. Lipstadt:
Personal Story Segment
C-Span Controversy
Guest: Deborah Lipstadt, author of "History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving"
Author Deborah Lipstadt has written a book about her legal battle with holocaust denier David Irving, who sued Lipstadt for libel. C-SPAN invited her to talk about the book, but the network insisted that Irving also be interviewed. "C-SPAN is a very important venue for authors and they asked me to be on and I was delighted," Lipstadt told The Factor. "Then I learned they were also going to put Irving on after me, creating a debate which I have avoided on principle. He says there was no Holocaust ? he says some Jews may have died, but just a few. It's the most convoluted political correctness ? they wanted to put him on for balance." Lipstadt refused to appear under those circumstances, and The Factor applauded her decision. "You were smart not to go on with him. You'll sell more books here."
Lipstadt in NY Sun: "Why I said No to C-Span"
OPED in today's New York Sun
March 23, 2005
Why I Said 'No' to C-Span
BY DEBORAH E. LIPSTADT
March 23, 2005
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/10993
C-span's "Book TV" has become a highly coveted venue for authors. The network, along with Oprah, has had a huge and positive impact on literacy in this country, an entire weekend - 48 consecutive hours - devoted to discussion of nonfiction books. The audience is book loving, reading, and, not to be dismissed, buying audience. I was delighted when C-span asked to broadcast a speech I was giving about my new book, "History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving."
The book chronicles how David Irving, a Holocaust denier, sued me for libel in a British courtroom for calling him a denier. Irving had called the Holocaust a "legend" and had declared that he removed all mention of the Holocaust from one of his books, because "if something did not happen you don't even dignify it with a footnote." He had counseled his followers that the Holocaust must be treated with, not just "ridicule," but tasteless analogies. He instructed them to say things "like more women died on the back seat of Senator Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz." His statement was greeted with laughter and applause. Given this record, I did not think that describing him as a denier was controversial.
I was wrong. He brought a libel suit against me in the United Kingdom demanding that I apologize, pay damages, and withdraw my book from circulation. In Britain, the onus is on the defendant to prove the truth of her words and not on the plaintiff to prove the falsehood. I could not, therefore, just walk away from the fight. Had I done so, the court would have found me guilty and, by so doing, legitimized his "definition" of the Holocaust. According to Mr. Irving, there was no German plan to kill the Jews. There were Jews who were killed, but as a result of rogue actions, not a coordinated program administered by the Third Reich. Moreover, Mr. Irving contends, Hitler was "the best friend the Jews had in Germany," and tried to prevent their persecution. One of the main claims in Mr. Irving's arsenal is that there were no gas chambers and that the survivors who contend otherwise are either psychopaths, liars, or in it for the money. He once asked a survivor how much money she made from having a number tattooed on her arm.
This legal battle lasted for over six years. The Royal High Court of Justice dismissed Mr. Irving's suit and, in a 355-page judgment, declared that in his writings about the Holocaust, he "perverts," "distorts," "mislead[s]," and does so "deliberate[ly]." His renditions of events were, the judge noted, a "travesty of the evidence" and were "reprehensible." Four different appeal court judges subsequently concurred.
My book was a personal account of the experience of having to defend the truth of what I wrote. The opportunity to have an hour to discuss it on C-span was something I looked forward to, until I learned that they were intending to juxtapose my talk with one by Mr. Irving. In essence, they were planning to create the debate between us, a debate I have long refused to have. I consider debating Holocaust deniers to be the equivalent of asking NASA scientists to debate those who argue that the moon landing actually happened on a sound stage in Nevada. There are many things to debate about the Holocaust, e.g. precisely when did the Nazis decide to murder European Jewry. Whether it happened is not one of them.
When I protested to C-span, they insisted that they broadcast all opinions [Holocaust denial is an "opinion"?] and that they broadcast liars all the time, after all, a C-span producer told me, "they put on members of Congress," - thus equating the U.S. Congress with bigoted liars. I cannot imagine them "balancing" an appearance by a specialist on African-American history with someone who says slavery was a pleasant experience. Or for that matter, "balancing" an appearance of a civil rights leader with a member of the Ku Klux Klan to discuss theories of black inferiority.
I told the C-span producer that, if they insisted on broadcasting me back to back with Irving, I would not allow them to cover my talk at Harvard. Then I added, almost as an afterthought, that I assumed that they would not broadcast Mr. Irving. "No," the producer assured me, "we plan to broadcast him in any case." I was too flabbergasted to ask the obvious: "Where's the balance in that?" I then learned that Mr. Irving had previously appeared on C-span; though no scholar had been asked to balance his presentations.
Holocaust deniers and, for that matter, most prejudiced people are wretched types who are no more important than the dirt we step in on the street. We must, however, clean it off our feet before we drag it into our homes. This time, however, my "adversary" was a network that many people look to as a source of calm, clear and, generally, insightful discussion.
Four years after my trial in a London court, I find myself far more disturbed by C-span's moral blindness than by pathetic characters such as Holocaust deniers.
Professor Lipstadt teaches Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University and the author of "History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving" (Ecco, 2005).
March 23, 2005 Edition > Section: Editorial and Opinion > Printer-Friendly Version
March 23, 2005
Why I Said 'No' to C-Span
BY DEBORAH E. LIPSTADT
March 23, 2005
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/10993
C-span's "Book TV" has become a highly coveted venue for authors. The network, along with Oprah, has had a huge and positive impact on literacy in this country, an entire weekend - 48 consecutive hours - devoted to discussion of nonfiction books. The audience is book loving, reading, and, not to be dismissed, buying audience. I was delighted when C-span asked to broadcast a speech I was giving about my new book, "History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving."
The book chronicles how David Irving, a Holocaust denier, sued me for libel in a British courtroom for calling him a denier. Irving had called the Holocaust a "legend" and had declared that he removed all mention of the Holocaust from one of his books, because "if something did not happen you don't even dignify it with a footnote." He had counseled his followers that the Holocaust must be treated with, not just "ridicule," but tasteless analogies. He instructed them to say things "like more women died on the back seat of Senator Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz." His statement was greeted with laughter and applause. Given this record, I did not think that describing him as a denier was controversial.
I was wrong. He brought a libel suit against me in the United Kingdom demanding that I apologize, pay damages, and withdraw my book from circulation. In Britain, the onus is on the defendant to prove the truth of her words and not on the plaintiff to prove the falsehood. I could not, therefore, just walk away from the fight. Had I done so, the court would have found me guilty and, by so doing, legitimized his "definition" of the Holocaust. According to Mr. Irving, there was no German plan to kill the Jews. There were Jews who were killed, but as a result of rogue actions, not a coordinated program administered by the Third Reich. Moreover, Mr. Irving contends, Hitler was "the best friend the Jews had in Germany," and tried to prevent their persecution. One of the main claims in Mr. Irving's arsenal is that there were no gas chambers and that the survivors who contend otherwise are either psychopaths, liars, or in it for the money. He once asked a survivor how much money she made from having a number tattooed on her arm.
This legal battle lasted for over six years. The Royal High Court of Justice dismissed Mr. Irving's suit and, in a 355-page judgment, declared that in his writings about the Holocaust, he "perverts," "distorts," "mislead[s]," and does so "deliberate[ly]." His renditions of events were, the judge noted, a "travesty of the evidence" and were "reprehensible." Four different appeal court judges subsequently concurred.
My book was a personal account of the experience of having to defend the truth of what I wrote. The opportunity to have an hour to discuss it on C-span was something I looked forward to, until I learned that they were intending to juxtapose my talk with one by Mr. Irving. In essence, they were planning to create the debate between us, a debate I have long refused to have. I consider debating Holocaust deniers to be the equivalent of asking NASA scientists to debate those who argue that the moon landing actually happened on a sound stage in Nevada. There are many things to debate about the Holocaust, e.g. precisely when did the Nazis decide to murder European Jewry. Whether it happened is not one of them.
When I protested to C-span, they insisted that they broadcast all opinions [Holocaust denial is an "opinion"?] and that they broadcast liars all the time, after all, a C-span producer told me, "they put on members of Congress," - thus equating the U.S. Congress with bigoted liars. I cannot imagine them "balancing" an appearance by a specialist on African-American history with someone who says slavery was a pleasant experience. Or for that matter, "balancing" an appearance of a civil rights leader with a member of the Ku Klux Klan to discuss theories of black inferiority.
I told the C-span producer that, if they insisted on broadcasting me back to back with Irving, I would not allow them to cover my talk at Harvard. Then I added, almost as an afterthought, that I assumed that they would not broadcast Mr. Irving. "No," the producer assured me, "we plan to broadcast him in any case." I was too flabbergasted to ask the obvious: "Where's the balance in that?" I then learned that Mr. Irving had previously appeared on C-span; though no scholar had been asked to balance his presentations.
Holocaust deniers and, for that matter, most prejudiced people are wretched types who are no more important than the dirt we step in on the street. We must, however, clean it off our feet before we drag it into our homes. This time, however, my "adversary" was a network that many people look to as a source of calm, clear and, generally, insightful discussion.
Four years after my trial in a London court, I find myself far more disturbed by C-span's moral blindness than by pathetic characters such as Holocaust deniers.
Professor Lipstadt teaches Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University and the author of "History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving" (Ecco, 2005).
March 23, 2005 Edition > Section: Editorial and Opinion > Printer-Friendly Version
S.F. Chronicle on C-Span Controversy
Jon Carroll in The San Francisco Chronicle weighs in.
So in this corner we have Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University. In the other corner we have author and lecturer David Irving, who once remarked, "I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the backseat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."
Lipstadt called Irving a "Holocaust denier," and, remarkably, Irving sued her for libel. A British Royal High Court of Justice dismissed Irving's lawsuit, saying, in effect, "Are you kidding?"
So now Lipstadt has written a book about the libel case and is seeking to promote it, like every author west of the international date line, on C-SPAN. C-SPAN decided that it would follow Lipstadt's remarks with a speech by Irving. This is called "fairness," which is one of those ideas that seem wonderful and reasonable until they run up against reality. I, for instance, became incensed when I read "What Color Is My Foot? No, Seriously, What Color Is It?" by Lockman Rodwall, a retired advertising executive. In it, Rodwall maintains that it is a bad idea to attack advertising executives with poisoned stilettos. "I categorically reject the idea," wrote Rodwall, "that any group of individuals, no matter how wealthy or influential, should have the power to pierce the flesh of advertising executives with curare-tipped needles."
A controversial idea? I should say so. I myself hold that one of the great freedoms our Founding Fathers preserved for us was the right to maim advertising executives in any manner we choose. That's Amendment 2.5, and I hold it sacred.
Well, this Rodwall fellow got a slot on C-SPAN to promote his book as part of the panel discussion called "No One Is Watching Anyway; Talk in French if You Want." I immediately called C-SPAN to demand time to rebut Rodwall and, in accordance with my constitutional rights, to impale an advertising executive on a bed of cyanide-tipped nails.
Well, of course, all those namby-pamby civil rights people got involved, saying, "Oh no, you can't kill anyone on television," conveniently forgetting the daily footage of people being killed in Iraq by nice American boys just doing their jobs. I'd be doing my job, too. I'd be defending the Constitution and, not incidentally, reducing the world population of advertising executives by one.
I could go on like this all day, but I'll stop now. There is no "fairness" in society. There is no "fairness" in the media. No one is going to print an opinion piece called "Incest Is Really Cool" or "Let's Make a Car Bomb!" or "Hunger No More! We'll Eat Our Babies." So we're all involved in making judgments about what is an acceptable opinion and what is an unacceptable opinion.
Of course, everyone is still free to express any opinion. But society is going to suppress some opinions, free speech or no, because there is good in the world and there is evil in the world and somewhere along the road to madness we have to acknowledge that. Slavery was real; the Holocaust was real; the massacre of Armenians by Turks was real; the massacre of American Indians by European invaders was real. Those realities are inconvenient, but not so inconvenient that we get to play "wishing makes it so" games.
The lesson of all these realities is the same: Within each of us lies a monster. That monster can be aroused. It takes ideology, circumstances, fear - - whatever. We do not understand the monster within us. It is useful for us to face the monster, and give it a name, and inquire as to its nature. Fairness is of no use in this quest.
The problem comes in the areas in which society has not formed a consensus. Sometimes the consensus changes over time. In 1958, less than 50 years ago, only 4 percent of Americans thought that interracial marriage should be permitted. A plurality of Americans -- 48 percent -- did not accept interracial marriage until 1991. There may be a great conservative wave in this country, but there is a great undercurrent of tolerance too. That's why I think history is on the side of gay marriage.
That's what makes this information business so hard. Everything is a judgment call; there are no rules -- or rather, what is a rule today will not be a rule tomorrow. I'll give you an example: This paper and the New York Times both ban the term "pro-life" to describe the anti-abortion movement. I think that's a terrible idea because it is the only term that gives you a real sense of what the fight looks like from the anti-choice side. That's what they think the stakes are, like it or not.
I think that C-SPAN's decision was wrong, but I can sure see how it happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some ideas are good and some ideas are not good, and it is useful to distinguish between the two, even if it makes some people angry.
Gentle bows and glasses raised, to the charity of jcarroll@sfchronicle.com.
So in this corner we have Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University. In the other corner we have author and lecturer David Irving, who once remarked, "I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the backseat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."
Lipstadt called Irving a "Holocaust denier," and, remarkably, Irving sued her for libel. A British Royal High Court of Justice dismissed Irving's lawsuit, saying, in effect, "Are you kidding?"
So now Lipstadt has written a book about the libel case and is seeking to promote it, like every author west of the international date line, on C-SPAN. C-SPAN decided that it would follow Lipstadt's remarks with a speech by Irving. This is called "fairness," which is one of those ideas that seem wonderful and reasonable until they run up against reality. I, for instance, became incensed when I read "What Color Is My Foot? No, Seriously, What Color Is It?" by Lockman Rodwall, a retired advertising executive. In it, Rodwall maintains that it is a bad idea to attack advertising executives with poisoned stilettos. "I categorically reject the idea," wrote Rodwall, "that any group of individuals, no matter how wealthy or influential, should have the power to pierce the flesh of advertising executives with curare-tipped needles."
A controversial idea? I should say so. I myself hold that one of the great freedoms our Founding Fathers preserved for us was the right to maim advertising executives in any manner we choose. That's Amendment 2.5, and I hold it sacred.
Well, this Rodwall fellow got a slot on C-SPAN to promote his book as part of the panel discussion called "No One Is Watching Anyway; Talk in French if You Want." I immediately called C-SPAN to demand time to rebut Rodwall and, in accordance with my constitutional rights, to impale an advertising executive on a bed of cyanide-tipped nails.
Well, of course, all those namby-pamby civil rights people got involved, saying, "Oh no, you can't kill anyone on television," conveniently forgetting the daily footage of people being killed in Iraq by nice American boys just doing their jobs. I'd be doing my job, too. I'd be defending the Constitution and, not incidentally, reducing the world population of advertising executives by one.
I could go on like this all day, but I'll stop now. There is no "fairness" in society. There is no "fairness" in the media. No one is going to print an opinion piece called "Incest Is Really Cool" or "Let's Make a Car Bomb!" or "Hunger No More! We'll Eat Our Babies." So we're all involved in making judgments about what is an acceptable opinion and what is an unacceptable opinion.
Of course, everyone is still free to express any opinion. But society is going to suppress some opinions, free speech or no, because there is good in the world and there is evil in the world and somewhere along the road to madness we have to acknowledge that. Slavery was real; the Holocaust was real; the massacre of Armenians by Turks was real; the massacre of American Indians by European invaders was real. Those realities are inconvenient, but not so inconvenient that we get to play "wishing makes it so" games.
The lesson of all these realities is the same: Within each of us lies a monster. That monster can be aroused. It takes ideology, circumstances, fear - - whatever. We do not understand the monster within us. It is useful for us to face the monster, and give it a name, and inquire as to its nature. Fairness is of no use in this quest.
The problem comes in the areas in which society has not formed a consensus. Sometimes the consensus changes over time. In 1958, less than 50 years ago, only 4 percent of Americans thought that interracial marriage should be permitted. A plurality of Americans -- 48 percent -- did not accept interracial marriage until 1991. There may be a great conservative wave in this country, but there is a great undercurrent of tolerance too. That's why I think history is on the side of gay marriage.
That's what makes this information business so hard. Everything is a judgment call; there are no rules -- or rather, what is a rule today will not be a rule tomorrow. I'll give you an example: This paper and the New York Times both ban the term "pro-life" to describe the anti-abortion movement. I think that's a terrible idea because it is the only term that gives you a real sense of what the fight looks like from the anti-choice side. That's what they think the stakes are, like it or not.
I think that C-SPAN's decision was wrong, but I can sure see how it happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some ideas are good and some ideas are not good, and it is useful to distinguish between the two, even if it makes some people angry.
Gentle bows and glasses raised, to the charity of jcarroll@sfchronicle.com.
The American Thinker on the C-Span Controversy
The American Thinker has weighed in on the controversy.
Equal time follies
Fox News is often mocked for its slogan "fair and balanced - we report you decide." In the skewed world of news reporting that is mockable because for so long news was generally presented through a liberal haze -- the opposing side, if given attention, was set up as a straw figure.
C-SPAN, the cable channel devoted mainly to public affairs, took a similar equal time philosophy to bizarre lengths recently when they decided to devote equal exposure not only to respected Holocaust historian Professor Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University but to racist propagandist David Irving. Lipstadt was to discuss her book detailing her victory in a British court against Holocuast denier Irving. In C-SPAN's distorted world, Irving deserved equal time.
Equal time, equal balance to Bush v Kerry--of course. (Oh, that it should have been!)
Equal time, equal balance to Lipstadt and Irving. Of course not -- truth and racism are not morally equivalent. Lipstadt proved in a British courtroom that Irving distored history.
Tell that to the usually bright folks at C-SPAN, bookrv@c-span.org.
Ethel C. Fenig 3 22 05
Equal time follies
Fox News is often mocked for its slogan "fair and balanced - we report you decide." In the skewed world of news reporting that is mockable because for so long news was generally presented through a liberal haze -- the opposing side, if given attention, was set up as a straw figure.
C-SPAN, the cable channel devoted mainly to public affairs, took a similar equal time philosophy to bizarre lengths recently when they decided to devote equal exposure not only to respected Holocaust historian Professor Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University but to racist propagandist David Irving. Lipstadt was to discuss her book detailing her victory in a British court against Holocuast denier Irving. In C-SPAN's distorted world, Irving deserved equal time.
Equal time, equal balance to Bush v Kerry--of course. (Oh, that it should have been!)
Equal time, equal balance to Lipstadt and Irving. Of course not -- truth and racism are not morally equivalent. Lipstadt proved in a British courtroom that Irving distored history.
Tell that to the usually bright folks at C-SPAN, bookrv@c-span.org.
Ethel C. Fenig 3 22 05
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
3/30 Lipstadt at Barnes and Noble, Upper West Side of Manhattan
7:30 p.m. Barnes and Noble, Broadway and 83rd St.
Lecture and Book Signing
Lecture and Book Signing
3/23 Barnes and Noble, Athens Ga.
Lecture and book signing
Check with B&N in Athens Ga. for precise details.
Check with B&N in Athens Ga. for precise details.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Deniers not welcome on JBooks.com
As Prof. Lipstadt noted earlier, deniers will not be given a platform on this blog. Nor are they welcome on JBooks:
You'd think that with the multiplicity of cyber-venues available to them, they wouldn't need to flaunt their bigotry and ignorance elsewhere. Oh, well ... perhaps they don't get much of an audience at their regular posting-grounds.
March 21, 2005
JBooks recently ran a threaded discussion about Deborah Lipstadt, which included comments from the Emory professor [herself]. Unfortunately, a number of Holocaust deniers, including David Irving, found their way into the conversation and immediately began desecrating the memory of the Shoah. Therefore, we've discontinued the discussion. If you're interested in the Lipstadt saga, read our review and perhaps Richard Cohen's Washington Post article, then catch her tonight on The O'Reilly Factor (show starts at 8).
You'd think that with the multiplicity of cyber-venues available to them, they wouldn't need to flaunt their bigotry and ignorance elsewhere. Oh, well ... perhaps they don't get much of an audience at their regular posting-grounds.
Troy (NY) Record Supports C-Span while Newsday Does Not.
In addition to the articles, blog entries and wire coverage over the past week, editorials are now starting to appear.
The editorialists at Troy Record voiced their support of C-Span, one of the few newspapers or blogs to do so. They wonder:
But Newsday took a different stance:
The editorialists at Troy Record voiced their support of C-Span, one of the few newspapers or blogs to do so. They wonder:
Can there be any reasonable person in the western world who disputes the breadth and depth of the Holocaust?"
The operative word is "reasonable," as we know there are right-wing groups in our own country whose belief system springs from an anti-Semitic fountain that spews lies about the Holocaust. Indeed, one British historian, David Irving, has made a career based on challenging the extent of the Holocaust.
[...]
We agree with Lipstadt and the historians who are appalled by what Irving stands for. Anyone who could deny one of history's most horrific examples of inhumanity is a either a fool or someone carrying a misguided burden of hatred for certain people.However, because Lispstadt chose to make an issue of her court battle with Irving by writing a book, Irving's account of the same issue should be fair game for airing. Certainly his lecture would provide viewers a clearer picture of what sparked the battle in the first place.
[...]
Letting Irving be heard on a respectable medium like C-Span, a network with no agenda and no pundits, only reinforces the fact that bigotry and hate still run deep among some people the world over,....
But Newsday took a different stance:
Indelicate balance
No need for equal time on Holocaust
[...]But the channel did itself a great disservice recently when it decided, under the guise of "balance," to give coverage to Holocaust denier David Irving because it was doing a show on a book by Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt.
[...]
More than 200 of this nation's leading historians have signed a letter strongly opposing the channel's decision to provide "balance" by including Irving. "Falsifiers of history cannot 'balance' historians," the historians write.
"Falsehoods cannot 'balance' the truth."
Well said. C-Span, given all the good work it has done, deserves a chance to explain better what it thought it was doing. Balance does not always serve the truth.
History on Trial reviewed on JBooks.com
An Undeniably Interesting Case
By SETH STERN
HISTORY ON TRIAL
My Day in Court with David Irving
By Deborah E. Lipstadt
368 pages. Ecco Press. $25.95.
It’s been more than five years since an English judge found Emory University historian Deborah Lipstadt innocent of libeling David Irving in a case that officially branded him as a Holocaust denier. At this point, there isn’t much new to say about the trial or its plaintiff, whom Lipstadt referenced in her 1993 book on the Holocaust denial movement.
The trial garnered international media attention, attracting the hordes of paparazzi usually associated with the British royal family. It was already the subject of two books published in 2001, including one by British historian Richard J. Evans, a man Lipstadt’s defense team hired to deconstruct Irving’s books. HBO even reportedly commissioned a movie about the case starring Anthony Hopkins as Irving.
So why this book? Generally speaking, the defendant usually isn’t the ideal candidate to write a trial’s definitive objective history. Well, there are plenty of good reasons to read History on Trial. It’s a compelling blow-by-blow narrative that began a fall day in 1995 when Lipstadt received a letter informing her of a possible libel action that she tossed aside with barely a second thought.
Of course, as events would prove, that wasn’t exactly how things unfolded. Irving may not have had the facts on his side but he did have British law working for him—at least at the outset.
In British courts, defendants in libel cases must prove the statements at issue are true. That puts libel plaintiffs in a much better position than in the United States, where the burden is placed on them to prove the statements they claimed injured them are false.
Lipstadt was fortunate that her case attracted the sympathies of deep-pocketed backers including Leslie Wexner, founder of The Limited and Victoria’s Secret chains, who could afford to offset more than $1.5 million in legal bills should would rack up. She assembled a dream team of historians and attorneys, who included Princess Diana’s divorce lawyer.
History on Trial offers a fascinating window into trial strategy. From the outset, her defense team pledged not to let the case become a platform for Irving to question whether the Holocaust happened. Instead, they built a case designed to show that even his previously well-regarded books were filled with duplicity and errors that always pointed in the same direction: questioning the Holocaust and favoring Hitler.
Then there are the trial scenes themselves, in which her barrister, Richard Rampton, eviscerates Irving one piece of evidence at a time. In just one of many aspects of British law that might seem arcane to American readers, different lawyers prepare the case and present it at trial.
True, you will have to wade through a few too many references to what wines she and her lawyers drank and how she unsuccessfully sought to unwind at night. (Note to readers: Don’t watch The Sound of Music or The Merchant of Venice to escape a trial centered on Nazis and anti-Semitism.)
But she largely keeps up the suspense even though most readers know well the outcome. The way Rampton boxes Irving into a corner with his evasions reads better than a Grisham courtroom scene. The way Lipstadt tells it, every word Rampton couldn’t recall while cross-examining witnesses, and every averted gaze, served a purpose. Or at least that’s what he told Lipstadt to calm her nerves.
It also helped their cause to have such a foolish opponent, who proved true the old adage that “he who represents himself has a fool for a client.” No responsible lawyer would tell her client to proceed with this sort of libel case. Lipstadt’s lawyers got their hands on Irving’s personal diaries, in which he describes singing racist ditties to his daughter and details speaking engagements before Aryan groups. He also must have known that his previously published books about Nazi Germany could not withstand serious scrutiny.
But Irving just couldn’t pass up such a prominent soapbox, which ultimately proved his undoing. The trial judge’s sweeping decision ruined Irving’s reputation and ultimately left him bankrupt. The British legal system gets at least one thing right in a case like this: Loser pays.
In the years since, Irving has been reduced to a sniveling bigot with little reach beyond his own website, but larger questions raised by the trial still linger.
What’s nearly as disturbing as Irving and his neo-Nazi supporters was the tendency of legitimate historians to defend him in the name of protecting free speech or brush him off as merely quirky. Why were Lipstadt and her team of historians criticized for the potentially chilling effect they might have on academia rather than Irving, who was the one who actually instigated the whole matter in the first place?
Lipstadt blames an old-boy network in which British academics, such as military historian Sir John Keegan, were more apt to sympathize with a sloppy and self-taught colleague with the right accent than an uppity Jewish-American female.
Sadly, the end of the trial did not bring an end to Holocaust denial. In fact, Lipstadt points out, it seems to have received a new lease on life in the Arab world.
Seth Stern is an attorney and a legal-affairs reporter for Congressional Quarterly in Washington, D.C.
By SETH STERN
HISTORY ON TRIAL
My Day in Court with David Irving
By Deborah E. Lipstadt
368 pages. Ecco Press. $25.95.
It’s been more than five years since an English judge found Emory University historian Deborah Lipstadt innocent of libeling David Irving in a case that officially branded him as a Holocaust denier. At this point, there isn’t much new to say about the trial or its plaintiff, whom Lipstadt referenced in her 1993 book on the Holocaust denial movement.
The trial garnered international media attention, attracting the hordes of paparazzi usually associated with the British royal family. It was already the subject of two books published in 2001, including one by British historian Richard J. Evans, a man Lipstadt’s defense team hired to deconstruct Irving’s books. HBO even reportedly commissioned a movie about the case starring Anthony Hopkins as Irving.
So why this book? Generally speaking, the defendant usually isn’t the ideal candidate to write a trial’s definitive objective history. Well, there are plenty of good reasons to read History on Trial. It’s a compelling blow-by-blow narrative that began a fall day in 1995 when Lipstadt received a letter informing her of a possible libel action that she tossed aside with barely a second thought.
Of course, as events would prove, that wasn’t exactly how things unfolded. Irving may not have had the facts on his side but he did have British law working for him—at least at the outset.
In British courts, defendants in libel cases must prove the statements at issue are true. That puts libel plaintiffs in a much better position than in the United States, where the burden is placed on them to prove the statements they claimed injured them are false.
Lipstadt was fortunate that her case attracted the sympathies of deep-pocketed backers including Leslie Wexner, founder of The Limited and Victoria’s Secret chains, who could afford to offset more than $1.5 million in legal bills should would rack up. She assembled a dream team of historians and attorneys, who included Princess Diana’s divorce lawyer.
History on Trial offers a fascinating window into trial strategy. From the outset, her defense team pledged not to let the case become a platform for Irving to question whether the Holocaust happened. Instead, they built a case designed to show that even his previously well-regarded books were filled with duplicity and errors that always pointed in the same direction: questioning the Holocaust and favoring Hitler.
Then there are the trial scenes themselves, in which her barrister, Richard Rampton, eviscerates Irving one piece of evidence at a time. In just one of many aspects of British law that might seem arcane to American readers, different lawyers prepare the case and present it at trial.
True, you will have to wade through a few too many references to what wines she and her lawyers drank and how she unsuccessfully sought to unwind at night. (Note to readers: Don’t watch The Sound of Music or The Merchant of Venice to escape a trial centered on Nazis and anti-Semitism.)
But she largely keeps up the suspense even though most readers know well the outcome. The way Rampton boxes Irving into a corner with his evasions reads better than a Grisham courtroom scene. The way Lipstadt tells it, every word Rampton couldn’t recall while cross-examining witnesses, and every averted gaze, served a purpose. Or at least that’s what he told Lipstadt to calm her nerves.
It also helped their cause to have such a foolish opponent, who proved true the old adage that “he who represents himself has a fool for a client.” No responsible lawyer would tell her client to proceed with this sort of libel case. Lipstadt’s lawyers got their hands on Irving’s personal diaries, in which he describes singing racist ditties to his daughter and details speaking engagements before Aryan groups. He also must have known that his previously published books about Nazi Germany could not withstand serious scrutiny.
But Irving just couldn’t pass up such a prominent soapbox, which ultimately proved his undoing. The trial judge’s sweeping decision ruined Irving’s reputation and ultimately left him bankrupt. The British legal system gets at least one thing right in a case like this: Loser pays.
In the years since, Irving has been reduced to a sniveling bigot with little reach beyond his own website, but larger questions raised by the trial still linger.
What’s nearly as disturbing as Irving and his neo-Nazi supporters was the tendency of legitimate historians to defend him in the name of protecting free speech or brush him off as merely quirky. Why were Lipstadt and her team of historians criticized for the potentially chilling effect they might have on academia rather than Irving, who was the one who actually instigated the whole matter in the first place?
Lipstadt blames an old-boy network in which British academics, such as military historian Sir John Keegan, were more apt to sympathize with a sloppy and self-taught colleague with the right accent than an uppity Jewish-American female.
Sadly, the end of the trial did not bring an end to Holocaust denial. In fact, Lipstadt points out, it seems to have received a new lease on life in the Arab world.
Seth Stern is an attorney and a legal-affairs reporter for Congressional Quarterly in Washington, D.C.
Lipstadt Scheduled for The O'Reilly Factor (Mar. 21/05)
Prof. Lipstadt is scheduled to appear on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor "No Spin Zone" this evening. I believe the program airs at 8:00 and 11:00 p.m. ET. Your time zone may vary, so please check your local listings!
No More Comments: A Sad Policy Change
When I first created this blog, my blog mentor London's Sashinka, urged me to allow comments. It will give you an opportunity to enter into a conversation with people who are interested in your work, she told me. I was delighted by the idea and enjoyed the early comments.
Then the antisemites, deniers, and kooks came out of the woodwork. They began to post long email message, most of them filled with drivel trying to prove all sorts of absurd things, e.g. Irving is not a denier and he did not lose the lawsuit.
I stopped commenting and left it some stalwarts to engage these people.
Yesterday, I put a stop to the whole thing. I decided that I don't have to provide a platform for these people. Some people told me that they learned a lot from reading their comments. "I knew these people were out there," one person wrote me, "but I never saw them 'up close and personal.' Ugh."
There are, sadly, many places on the Internet to see them "up close." But no longer on this blog site.
Then the antisemites, deniers, and kooks came out of the woodwork. They began to post long email message, most of them filled with drivel trying to prove all sorts of absurd things, e.g. Irving is not a denier and he did not lose the lawsuit.
I stopped commenting and left it some stalwarts to engage these people.
Yesterday, I put a stop to the whole thing. I decided that I don't have to provide a platform for these people. Some people told me that they learned a lot from reading their comments. "I knew these people were out there," one person wrote me, "but I never saw them 'up close and personal.' Ugh."
There are, sadly, many places on the Internet to see them "up close." But no longer on this blog site.
Los Angeles Times review of History on Trial
From the Los Angeles Times
A strike against those who deny the Holocaust
History on Trial My Day in Court With David Irving
Deborah E. Lipstadt Ecco: 346 pp., $25.95
By Edmund Fawcett
Edmund Fawcett, the former literary editor for the Economist, is a contributor to several publications, including the (London) Times Literary Supplement.
March 20, 2005
Toward the end of his libel suit against fellow historian Deborah E. Lipstadt, David Irving made a telling and hilarious slip. His case for defamation, heard in London, was that by calling him a Holocaust denier and falsifier of facts she had traduced his reputation as a scholar of Nazi Germany and World War II. He had chosen to represent himself and was closing out an emotional summation. Bowing slightly to the judge, Irving addressed him, not in the normal way as "my lord," but as "mein führer." The packed courtroom froze for an instant then burst into riotous laughter. An intricate battle of grim documentary citations had morphed into "The Producers." Clownishly, Irving seemed to be admitting that he had lost.
Britain's libel laws are notoriously favorable to plaintiffs. In practice, defendants must show "justification," which means proving that the rude things they have said are true. The 1993 book Irving cited in his original complaint, Lipstadt's "Denying the Holocaust," made two principal claims about him. The first — that Irving denied the Holocaust and vindicated Hitler — was the lesser problem for her. In copious published writings and in speeches to neo-fascist audiences around the globe, he had belittled the extent of Nazi persecution and — somewhat contradictorily — denied Hitler's personal responsibility for genocide. Lipstadt's second charge was that the British author twisted the record knowingly and wrote not as a disinterested historian but as an ideologically motivated anti-Semite. Just by sniffing Irving's language on his website or riffling a few pages of his work most people could agree without more ado. Proving it in court to a scrupulous judge — this was a bench trial, with no jury — was another matter.
Lipstadt's highly readable book chronicles the two-month trial virtually day by day, making lively and pointed use of the court transcript. The Emory University professor writes with a campaigner's passion, but also with humor about herself, as, for example, when she wrestles with her prejudice that clever Englishmen are emotionally dead fish.
Her book opens in 1995, when Irving served his complaint, and ends in April 2000 when the judge gave his ruling. Despite its grave subject, "History on Trial" reads like a well-paced courtroom procedural. Even readers who know or guess the outcome can enjoy the book as the righteous struggling against the wicked.
Lipstadt gathered a powerful defense team: Anthony Julius, a London lawyer and author of a study on anti-Semitism in T.S. Eliot's poetry, supervised strategy. Richard Rampton, a gun-for-hire who had recently won damages for McDonald's in a libel suit against London Greenpeace, argued for her in court. To Lipstadt and Julius, it was important that Irving not only lose, but be seen to lose badly. The case was a cause for them from the start. She believes it also became one for Rampton, particularly after he visited Auschwitz to prepare for trial.
Lipstadt's British publisher and co-defendant, Penguin Books, stood behind her when she refused Irving's early offer to settle in return for the withdrawal of her book and an apology. Penguin had braved censorship laws with "Lady Chatterley's Lover" and death threats over "The Satanic Verses." It was not going to back down before Irving — and, like most prominent British publishing concerns, it had libel insurance.
The defense's central problem, as Lipstadt puts it, was that they had no smoking gun. There was and could be no killer evidence that he was propagandist first and historian second. Indeed, a shelf's worth of widely praised military histories by him suggested the opposite. Furthermore, Irving could always play the underdog. A onetime steelworker, poor and self-taught, he had turned himself into a researcher who mined archives across Europe. He had regrettable views, to be sure. Hadn't many scholars? Reputable historians have said as much of him in print.
The defense first asked Cambridge historian Richard Evans to assess Irving's oeuvre. Evans' 700-page report, which was put into evidence and became the core of his own book on the trial, "Lying About History," proved devastating. Evans found a pattern of transcription errors, twisted or elliptical quotations and slipperiness with dates. The errors tended to buttress the argument that Irving had prejudices. Rampton skillfully exploited this gold mine. With dry patience he exposed Irving's distortions, keeping careful count of the plaintiff's ever lamer excuses — "I was tired," "I was stressed," "I forgot."
Judge Charles Gray's 335-page ruling was a comprehensive defeat and disgrace for Irving. Gray found that in writing of Hitler and the Holocaust, far from offering objective history, Irving had repeatedly "perverted" the record and falsified the facts to bring them into line with an anti-Semitic and racist agenda. There could, in addition, be no serious doubt that gas chambers existed at Auschwitz or that these operated on a "substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews," both facts that Irving had repeatedly and often contemptuously denied. Holocaust denial is not a crime in Britain, as it is in some European countries. But Gray's ruling, twice confirmed on appeal, removed a layer of legal protection from Irving and others who make similar assertions: People could now publicly call them liars and scoundrels without fear of the libel courts.
Perhaps wisely, Lipstadt ends there. Her book is compelling enough as the self-contained story of a gripping and important trial. It is not an essay on the political uses and abuses of the Holocaust, on the obligations of historians to objective truth or on the appropriate limits, if any, to the freedom of speech, though no reader can put it down without wondering about all those things.
In closing, she notes the persistence of Holocaust denial in many forms and in many countries — a reminder of how much it matters that there be victories like hers. •
A strike against those who deny the Holocaust
History on Trial My Day in Court With David Irving
Deborah E. Lipstadt Ecco: 346 pp., $25.95
By Edmund Fawcett
Edmund Fawcett, the former literary editor for the Economist, is a contributor to several publications, including the (London) Times Literary Supplement.
March 20, 2005
Toward the end of his libel suit against fellow historian Deborah E. Lipstadt, David Irving made a telling and hilarious slip. His case for defamation, heard in London, was that by calling him a Holocaust denier and falsifier of facts she had traduced his reputation as a scholar of Nazi Germany and World War II. He had chosen to represent himself and was closing out an emotional summation. Bowing slightly to the judge, Irving addressed him, not in the normal way as "my lord," but as "mein führer." The packed courtroom froze for an instant then burst into riotous laughter. An intricate battle of grim documentary citations had morphed into "The Producers." Clownishly, Irving seemed to be admitting that he had lost.
Britain's libel laws are notoriously favorable to plaintiffs. In practice, defendants must show "justification," which means proving that the rude things they have said are true. The 1993 book Irving cited in his original complaint, Lipstadt's "Denying the Holocaust," made two principal claims about him. The first — that Irving denied the Holocaust and vindicated Hitler — was the lesser problem for her. In copious published writings and in speeches to neo-fascist audiences around the globe, he had belittled the extent of Nazi persecution and — somewhat contradictorily — denied Hitler's personal responsibility for genocide. Lipstadt's second charge was that the British author twisted the record knowingly and wrote not as a disinterested historian but as an ideologically motivated anti-Semite. Just by sniffing Irving's language on his website or riffling a few pages of his work most people could agree without more ado. Proving it in court to a scrupulous judge — this was a bench trial, with no jury — was another matter.
Lipstadt's highly readable book chronicles the two-month trial virtually day by day, making lively and pointed use of the court transcript. The Emory University professor writes with a campaigner's passion, but also with humor about herself, as, for example, when she wrestles with her prejudice that clever Englishmen are emotionally dead fish.
Her book opens in 1995, when Irving served his complaint, and ends in April 2000 when the judge gave his ruling. Despite its grave subject, "History on Trial" reads like a well-paced courtroom procedural. Even readers who know or guess the outcome can enjoy the book as the righteous struggling against the wicked.
Lipstadt gathered a powerful defense team: Anthony Julius, a London lawyer and author of a study on anti-Semitism in T.S. Eliot's poetry, supervised strategy. Richard Rampton, a gun-for-hire who had recently won damages for McDonald's in a libel suit against London Greenpeace, argued for her in court. To Lipstadt and Julius, it was important that Irving not only lose, but be seen to lose badly. The case was a cause for them from the start. She believes it also became one for Rampton, particularly after he visited Auschwitz to prepare for trial.
Lipstadt's British publisher and co-defendant, Penguin Books, stood behind her when she refused Irving's early offer to settle in return for the withdrawal of her book and an apology. Penguin had braved censorship laws with "Lady Chatterley's Lover" and death threats over "The Satanic Verses." It was not going to back down before Irving — and, like most prominent British publishing concerns, it had libel insurance.
The defense's central problem, as Lipstadt puts it, was that they had no smoking gun. There was and could be no killer evidence that he was propagandist first and historian second. Indeed, a shelf's worth of widely praised military histories by him suggested the opposite. Furthermore, Irving could always play the underdog. A onetime steelworker, poor and self-taught, he had turned himself into a researcher who mined archives across Europe. He had regrettable views, to be sure. Hadn't many scholars? Reputable historians have said as much of him in print.
The defense first asked Cambridge historian Richard Evans to assess Irving's oeuvre. Evans' 700-page report, which was put into evidence and became the core of his own book on the trial, "Lying About History," proved devastating. Evans found a pattern of transcription errors, twisted or elliptical quotations and slipperiness with dates. The errors tended to buttress the argument that Irving had prejudices. Rampton skillfully exploited this gold mine. With dry patience he exposed Irving's distortions, keeping careful count of the plaintiff's ever lamer excuses — "I was tired," "I was stressed," "I forgot."
Judge Charles Gray's 335-page ruling was a comprehensive defeat and disgrace for Irving. Gray found that in writing of Hitler and the Holocaust, far from offering objective history, Irving had repeatedly "perverted" the record and falsified the facts to bring them into line with an anti-Semitic and racist agenda. There could, in addition, be no serious doubt that gas chambers existed at Auschwitz or that these operated on a "substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews," both facts that Irving had repeatedly and often contemptuously denied. Holocaust denial is not a crime in Britain, as it is in some European countries. But Gray's ruling, twice confirmed on appeal, removed a layer of legal protection from Irving and others who make similar assertions: People could now publicly call them liars and scoundrels without fear of the libel courts.
Perhaps wisely, Lipstadt ends there. Her book is compelling enough as the self-contained story of a gripping and important trial. It is not an essay on the political uses and abuses of the Holocaust, on the obligations of historians to objective truth or on the appropriate limits, if any, to the freedom of speech, though no reader can put it down without wondering about all those things.
In closing, she notes the persistence of Holocaust denial in many forms and in many countries — a reminder of how much it matters that there be victories like hers. •
C-SPAN Homepage Featured Links
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
