Drinking On My Period

Freedom of speech, rhetoric and journalism

The good (I am correcting "the terrible") 1972 indicates 's interview released by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the German weekly Der Spiegel and the next the same comment, which appeared on National Review , signed Michael Ledeen of known American scholar. The

Spiegel Ahmadinejad questions the Holocaust:

SPIEGEL: continues to claim that the Holocaust is just a myth?
Ahmadinejad: I recognize something as true only when I'm really convinced.
SPIEGEL: Even though no Western scholar I have no doubt about the Holocaust?
Ahmadinejad: But in Europe there are two schools of thought about it. A group of scholars or persons, most of which are politically oriented, argue that the Holocaust happened. Then there is a group of scholars representing the opposite position and have been for this, for the most part, put in prison. So it shall be an impartial panel to investigate and rule on such an important issue [...] It would be very helpful if an international and impartial consideration to take in order to clarify the matter once and for all. Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in prison .

The embarrassment of Journalists of Spiegel is that they pretend not to understand:

SPIEGEL: Who would ? Which researchers do you mean?
Ahmadinejad: You should know better than me, you have the list. There are people in the UK, Germany, France and Australia.

fact they understood perfectly:

SPIEGEL: You probably means, for example, the Englishman David Irving, the German-Canadian Ernst Zündel, who is on trial in Mannheim, and the Frenchman Georges Theil, all Holocaust deniers.

The embarrassment of Journalists of Spiegel is easily explained. Ahmadinejad, though not at all believable as a champion of freedom of research and thought, said something true . And that is that in Europe who question the Holocaust is being tried and thrown in jail.

It 's the case , for example, of David Irving sentenced to three years' imprisonment by the Assize Court of Vienna apologia for Nazism.

Make an impression that, in the Europe of 2006, you can be jailed for crimes of opinion and is therefore easy to understand the disorientation of the journalists Spiegel, who can not do anything but cash.

But according to Michael Ledeen, the three German journalists have proved the "incapable", being fallen into "rhetorical trap" of Ahmadinejad, but should have been blunt , too, with strokes of rhetoric

When the interviewer Spiegel evidence to suggest that there is a large amount of evidence for the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad, at first, he resorts to one of its systems used to seal the mouth of his interlocutor ("Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in jail "), as if his regime had not arrested, tortured and murdered thousands of Iranians had tried to tell the truth about the actions of the regime. Then he attacks the poor German: Why do you feel compelled to support Zionism? Why do you Germans still feel guilty about the Holocaust? "Why, today, the German people be humiliated because of a group of people who committed crimes in the name of the German people during the course of history?" The Spiegel journalist does not have the readiness to ask Ahmadinejad why jihadis like him base their actions on events that occurred centuries ago and then have the courage to condemn the Germans because they feel guilty for the actions of their parents.

Michael Ledeen, "The Iranian Challenge " NRO , May 31, 2006

Thus, according to Ledeen, the task of the journalist would not seek to analyze and tell his readers anything close, even vaguely, to the truth of the facts, leaving room for doubt, no would, in the case of an interview, the interviewee to ask questions to bring out the thought in a manner sufficiently clear and objective. The task of the journalist is, according to Ledeen, presenting the facts from their point of view and use the tools of rhetoric to criticize (or praise, as appropriate) of respondents thought the clear purpose of influencing the reader.

There is no doubt that this happens all the time, anywhere in the world.

But would not it be better if journalists Spiegel they could respond without resorting to rhetoric and not lie: "No, Mr. President. You are mistaken. In Europe, unlike what happens in its country, everyone is free to think and say what he wants and no one is prosecuted and imprisoned for their views, however abhorrent they may be. Everyone is free to produce the symbols, political or religious reasons, he prefers: the Christian cross, swastika, Celtic cross, sickle and hammer ..."?

They could not do it.

PS
In Indeed, in Europe and elsewhere in the world, display the symbol of sickle and hammer "is perfectly legal.