The Best Thing About Blogging

Radwanski is typical of the stilted pomposity of the old 4th estate....if the only argument he can offer to denigrate the blogesphere is that it is promoting singular ideologies, then he displays he was always uncomfortable in an open market place for ideas and opinion and the open discourse of the community which evolves from it.

Radwanski lives in the dark age where a select media elite held a monopoly on information and formed a singular lock-step "ideology" which supports the exclusivity of Jurassic opinion journaism.

Right Girl Right On.

The Post is a shell of it's former self. It must be horrible for the owners of the Post, being the blind liberal supporters that they are, to have to spew out that horrible right wing logic. With the probe and fail cornering the looney left babble they have to take a reasonable and common sense approach or the paper dies. Watch for the Post to die anyway.

Great commentary by Kathy Shaidle: I couldn't agree with her more--on Radwanski's one-sided and paranoid rant against blogs and bloggers, but most especially her exposure of the nepotism in the Canadian MSM.

I'm going to throw up the next time I see another media/politico personality's kid with a byline, their own TV show, or a spot on a TV/radio show: She gets it about right--the Trudeaus, Ben Mulroney, Avi Lewis, tous les Richlers, Catherine Clark, David and Linda Frum, Patrick Graham, Jonathan Kay (?)--and, of course, George's son Adam Radwanski himself . I'd love to know who else. Some, like David Frum and the Richlers have talent, but too many of them have got their positions, it's obvious, because of their pedigree.

The Canadian MSM seems to have a pretty small gene pool from which to choose media personality successors (Peter Mansbridge, as far as I know, doesn't have any children), Bronwyn Drainie,

Now I know why Radwanski always stays in his comfort zone -- his trousers fall off when he leaves it. Wow. His underlying point -- which he seems to think he can cover up with Simpson-style calls for civility -- is that blogs lead to impoliteness and to the expression of uncomfortable truths by commoners which is disruptive and dangerous to the common good, and that the nation had better get a grip on its senses and come back home to the MSM, where we can all enjoy Radwanski's little floral-scented gift-baskets of weakly-expressed, default-setting Liberal platitudes.

Interesting sidenote: If you blow on a Radwanski column, it disappears.

Whoops, sorry I didn't edit above post. The main drift is clear, though.

As per Western Canadian's remark "Watch for the Post to die...," I think it's well on its way. As a supporter of the NP from day-one, I cancelled my online subscription this past winter. Turfing Steyn and Frum was the first straw and slowly but surely the Aspers piled on other straws till the last one tipped the scales a few months ago.

Whatever bad things can be said about Conrad Black, he ran a lively paper which was a great alternative to the same-old, same-old Canadian left/lib/fem mush.

Shaidle's comment is note and tone-perfect!

Several years ago I begged my daughter, a TV producer in Dublin and London before that, to NOT return to Canada exactly because of Kathy's breathtaking phrase "the elite no-talent nepotistic commentariat mafia."

She took my advice especially after learning that an old boyfriend, the son of a Order of Canada recipient [NOT a conservative!] got a job at the CBC. Recently, at a international festival, the CBC made an open-ended offer but she wisely demurred.

It hurt to give that advice, but I feel completely vindicated. Thanks Kate!

Possibly also seen in the outdoor biffy at the Frobisher Bay International Airport.

but what are we supposed to do Kate, when you sell out to MSM ???

will you remember us ???

LOL !!!

EBD: 'uncomfortable truths' BINGO !!!

personally I have use the currency of truth long enough it doesnt scare me at all. I still like watching elected officials and eliterrati squirm in the face of it.

I have to concur that this was note and tone-perfect. Not sure what my favourite part was: either the flawlessly executed triple scare quote ("free" "health" "care") or the well deserved dig "the growing tendency of Canadian right wing bloggers (mostly the male ones), to strain to be good little movement conservatives and never write anything controversial". Beautiful stuff.

Any relation between Adam Radwanski, and GEORGE Radwanski, ( who wrote a suckhole biography about Jean Cruton- as well as speeches for him)? The same GEORGE Radwanski who was FORGIVEN a six-figure Revenue Canikistan TAX BILL, days before scoring a government flunky position as our FEDERAL PRIVACY COMISSIONER!?!
(And hey- George has now relocated to Ottawa- who is he working for, these days?)

Kathy Shaidle does it again. What a terrific post, too bad it wasn't published in the actual Post, were it so I would consider re-subscribing. So sad to see a paper that started out with such promise slowly dieing.

This hot weather's great for blogging. No way I'm stepping outside!

"Any relation between Adam Radwanski, and GEORGE Radwanski"? Apparently they're father and son: who'd have thunk it? Good old Canadian nepotism at work. "And hey- George has now relocated to Ottawa- who is he working for, these days?" Does George have to work for anyone after the Libs paid him off handsomely for his misdemeanours?

Heh, re: Radwanksi, I was wondering if it was THAT Radwanksi. Thanks. Amazing Shaidle didn't know that or perhaps she was being kind.

Is there anything funnier on earth than a "Government Privacy Commission". Even Orwell couldn't have thunk that up.

Wikipedia has this, among other things, to say about Liberal hack George Radwanski:

"Radwanski was forced to resign [as the Liberal-appointed Privacy Commissioner] in 2003, less than half way into his seven year term...following criticism by Auditor-General Sheila Fraser into [sic] Radwanski's spending habits. An investigation...found that he racked up $500,000 in improper travel and hospitality expenses and misled the Canadian House of Commons over lax spending practices in his office. The committee also accused Radwanski of falsifying a document sent to it and passed a resolution declaring him to be in 'contempt of Parliament' as a result...

"On March 15, 2006 he was charged with fraud and breach of trust following a 26-month long Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation into his expense claims while a public servant...

"His son, Adam Radwanski, is a political affairs columnist for the National Post."

Too bad Kathy Shaidle didn't have a famous Canadian parent: She writes better than most of the journalist-offspring. An enterprising media outlet would pick her up in a heartbeat, but as we don't have any enterprising media outlets north of the 49th parallel, it's not going to happen. Damn.

Thanks to all of you for your encouraging comments! And no, I honestly didn't put the two Radwanskis together; believe it or not, I'm not enough of a policy wonk to keep government people's names straight -- and I mostly consume US media to boot. shame on me :-)

I just wish I'd thought of "little floral scented gift baskets"... Rats!

Adam Radwanski is the Thurston Howell III of Canadian journalism. I assume he has a floral scented bidet.

One of the funny things was Radwanski's timing. Probably just as he was penning his essay, the anti-extremists were coming out of the woodwork at the Shotgun. So readers of the NP who went there to see a train wreck instead found the train back on track, at least if what one's looking for is an unrestricted debate that still contains a sense of reason. That's what the Shotgun is for, according to the Shotgun. The saga continues but perhaps the highlight so far is Ezra Levant's excellent essay at tinyurl.com/klndw - here's a short excerpt:

"I think it is a better approach to let the marketplace of ideas sort these things out. Artificially censoring what can and can't be written -- like Zerbisias does -- or not permitting feedback at all -- like Radwanski does -- are old media calling cards. In the new media, if you don't allow people to react and respond, they'll go elsewhere where they can. It's quite democratic, and like other aspects of democracy, it can be grubby.

"In the end, I believe that by maintaining a balance of views on the blog -- libertarians, conservatives, hawks, isolationists, people from different countries and different religions -- we will get a great debate. I acknowledge that some of the comments have been less than smart, or even vulgar. But that, too, is the nature of democracy, and it is far more interesting reading than the bowdlerized letters to the editor of the MSM."

That was saaaaaad...
It's nothing more than a pathetic attempt to try and explain how his job and newspapers in general are somehow relevant. It did make my stomach churn watching a communist try and explain why people should not be free to consume any media they choose.
Someone tell me why I've been paying $1.75 for the Post, anyway...
At any rate, I really doubt that habit will continue.

Well, it's up to you of course, Knight, but personally I do value the opinions and quality writing of Mr's Fulford, Coyne, Jonas, Frum, Krauthammer, Dershowitz, Warren, Black, et cetera, in the National Post.

I also value the writings of Blatchford and Murphy in the Globe and Mail, and though the overall tenor of the publication has been to the negative, from my perspective, it is interesting to note that the lead editorials have not. I'm still somewhat curious about that.

Then, of course, there's the likes of Steyn, Levant, Libin, Sowell, Williams, Lemieux, Mansur, et cetera at the Western Standard, whose opinions and writing I also value.

I do think it is a mistake to over-generalize one's criticism of the more traditional media as a whole. One would be better off, I should think, in targeting one's opprobrium more selectively.

Normally I wouldn't go to Radwanski's blog, but I thought he might have posted the column there (http://www.adamradwanski.com/blog.html) Interesting is his defense especially his defense for not allowing comments.

There is a link to his NP column dated July 31.
What stood out to me was his parting shot:

" It's a trend that should remind us to hold ourselves to a higher standard, to seek out dissenting views and think critically about the perspectives being sold to us - because the last thing we need is a nation of Right Girls and their sycophants."

He continously points out the faults of blogs, that there is very little dissention. He says: "Both sides would have you believe they're engaged in a righteous war with one another for the soul of America. But because they never actually engage each other, it's not a war at all - it's just two sides endlessly rallying the troops."

Then he goes on to say: "This would be a relatively minor concern if such fulminating was limited to the Internet. But conditioned by their online reading, as well as listening to Fox and talk radio, consumers are demanding the same stuff elsewhere."

When you put all of this into context with his defense about allowing comments on his blog it seems to me as though he's afraid of free speech, wouldn't know it if it bit him in the arse, and hasn't got the same level of courage as some of his colleagues like Andrew Coyne. And I see he mentions Paul Wells (no Coyne) as a good blog, who also has no comments.

I liked the link to Margaret Wente that Kathy used; 7 Things you can't say in Canada. May the force be with us. And to the uppity Radwanski I say; go read George Jonas.

>>"I have had to sit down with legal counsel to find out if there could potentially be a claim against me (and if, like some twisted version of Ally McBeal, I can actually sue an entire religion for promoting hate. Turns out that I can)."

What legal assurances are there that a suit against a religion would get any further in the courts than say, the Caledonia, ONT attempts against the insurrection there.

Jury nullification has been a fairly well documented event for many years. What would prevent government or judicial nullification in the event of a suit against religion?

Either the society is one of laws or it is not.

National Post. Can not toss it just yet. I never read Radwinsky. One just has to keep the cream separator in trim and toss the Libby fluff. Baby out with bathwater.. etc.

Still lotsa good stuff and individuals there.

The in laws always get a desk and phone in big business... even in efficient right leaning enterprise. = TG

“"I think it is a better approach to let the marketplace of ideas sort these things out. Artificially censoring what can and can't be written -- like Zerbisias does -- or not permitting feedback at all -- like Radwanski does -- are old media calling cards. In the new media, if you don't allow people to react and respond, they'll go elsewhere where they can. It's quite democratic, and like other aspects of democracy, it can be grubby.”

Amen. Truer words have yet to be written.

It’s too bad Levant doesn’t actually believe them.

http://wonkitties.blogspot.com/2006/02/shotgun-readers-very-gay-friendly.html

A little frivolous, grubby even, but removing it is still “Artificially censoring what can and can't be written.” Something Zerbisias, Radwanski AND Levant does from time to time.

As to the ideas that the Radwanski column puts forward...

One of his best points is the idea that the blogosphere becomes an echo chamber where people constantly reenforce their own opinions and rarely expose themselves to anything that may challenge their core beliefs. This is a right AND left issue.

Please, someone, help me understand how the comments here aren’t demonstrating that phenomena perfectly. case in point, some of you have already dismissed the link I provided because it comes from a “Liberal,”

And in the interest of full disclosure, yes, I am a journalist. But, not a very well paid, or influential, one.

DGR,

At first I ws going to ask if you were new to the net. However it follows that as part of the MSM, the very fault you outline, belongs to you in fact. First visit here? eh?

I am known as a *newbie*. This is all still shiny new to me and yet I am aware that many of my fellow protagonists and antagonists do in fact read the **enemy*s** blog writings.

Vist your opponents and find his weaknesses.

Done all the time. I am no liberal, yet I am often at Calgary Grit*s site. It*s a little depressing lately with all the fluffy liberal leadership ballet going nowhere.

Radwinsky? Blogosphere an echo chamber??

I*m sorry to have wasted my time here. How can any person who isn*t brain dead toy with that idea in this borderless zone?

The secret to becoming an influential and well paid journalist is to mull over the research and visit the zone for some time before signing on to Idiot Radwinsy. Prove to yourself how silly that notion is.

I find the signature of commentors here all over the most unlikely places on the net.

Where the hell do you think they get there documentation from? They dig! Do you? = TG

Er, isn't the fact that we all _read_ Rad's column in the first place kinda blow his whole "echo chamber" thing to bits?

I still haven't read it, actually.

Although you come across as a tad condescending (something I'm guilty of as well), thank you for the response.

I'm, in no way, a newbie. I go way back (like, Usenet back) in the whole internet as a tool for "grassroots" journalism thing. In fact, I became a journalist after I spent many years acting like one online (and took a big paycut to do so).

The MSM is guilty of being too defensive (as am I) when it comes to dealing with criticism from outside. In so much as the Blogosphere has an "inside," it suffers from the same weakness. Those who believe in the power of blogging, podcasting, etc, are, I think, a bit blind to its weaknesses.

You may visit "the enemy's" blogs (telling that you label it as such, I think) and no doubt others do as well. But many don't. Many are content to pat each other on the back and yell FASCIST (the left), or HIPPY FREAK (the right) at those opinions they disagree with.

--and as an aside, perhaps my opinion on this is influenced by the fact that I spend more online time on discussion boards than at blogs (although I'm shifting a bit). Go to a freedominion.ca, or a rabble.ca/babble (to name a couple) and tell me those places aren't just a little bit echo chamber like.--

Bottom line, debating the weaknesses of the blogosphere is legitimate--especially since its influence is undeniable and growing. The blogosphere has been unrelenting in its criticism of the MSM over the years and, in some cases, it's making a difference in the world's newsrooms.

You disagree with the contention of the article in question. However, I haven't seen anyone, including the publisher of this blog, actually deconstruct his arguments. Rather, most simply shout them down. Considering what is often said about the "arrogance" of the MSM, don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?