The following is the first of three essays reviewing and responding to three articles published in the November issue of Ethnorama News Winnipeg; this is a response to the article "Free Speech for Peace," listed without author and appearing on pages 1, 3 and 4 of the issue; the body of the essay will go through the article in question in detail, and the conclusions drawn will be enumerated in the "Conclusions" section at the bottom.
They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, and, let me tell you, the barbed-wire dialogue box that had the title of Ethnorama News' article "Free Speech for Peace" caged like a political prisoner reveals more about the publication and its editors' views of themselves than I could hope to describe in many pages of text. But, however succinct and illuminating that image may be, I will still attempt to break down the serious logical and ethical shortcomings of the article as I see it.
The article begins by setting up the context for the ensuing opprobrium: the appearance of an article by Professor Ryan in the September issue of Ethnorama discussing the "NATO supported conflict against Russia in Ukraine" - a remarkably revealing framing of Russia's illegal and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state. It goes on to explain that Ryan's column is based on "documented facts" that "dispel the spin that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was ... unprovoked."
The author(s) go on to explain that "MPs Leah Gazan and Daniel Blaikie contacted Ethnorama to inform us the article by John Ryan had come to the attention of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress who had met with NDP Federal caucus members exerting pressure to withdraw support for Ethnorama." Let's look at the chain of events as they unfolded, and assess this claim.
CLAIMS OF UCC INVOLVEMENT
When I first discovered the content in question in Ethnorama News, I began conducting cursory research on the publication, as well as on John Ryan and Global Research. When I had completed my initial survey, I wrote an email to the offices of Daniel Blaikie, Leah Gazan, Jagmeet Singh, Malaya Marcelino, Wab Kinew and Jason Schreyer informing them of my discoveries, and asking for them to clarify their respective positions on the Ukraine war and their ongoing financial and contributory relationships with Ethnorama News. The next day, at 7:05 P.M. Ottawa time, I received an email from Mélanie Richer, Jagmeet Singh's Director of Communications, containing an official joint statement from Blaikie, Gazan, and the federal NDP; the full text of the statement is available in an earlier article, titled "Seek Local Action, Find International Scandal."
The joint statement reiterated the Members' and Party's support for the Ukrainian people, and disclosed the fact that Blaikie and Gazan had contacted Ethnorama News to voice their concerns and to terminate their financial relationship with the organization.
It would be several days after my receipt of their joint statement that I would publish the article revealing the story, and several more days still before I would begin emailing the article around - including to the Manitoba office of the UCC - in an attempt to get some exposure for the story. I never received a response, so I don't know if anyone at the UCC even saw the article.
Now, unless the UCC became aware of the situation and independently contacted the NDP, and I just happened to have done likewise just before the NDP had come to the decision to sever ties with Ethnorama News - a seemingly remote possibility - I dont see how the NDP's decision could have been informed by pressure from the UCC. Indeed, this scenario becomes even less likely when one considers the fact that the NDP press release hasn't appeared anywhere besides my article - wouldn't the UCC publicize their findings?
Nowhere in my email do I claim to represent the UCC, so I do not know how anyone in Ms. Gazan's office could come to the conclusion that that was the case, never mind specifically make such a claim to the staff at Ethnorama. There seems to be two possible explanations for this discrepancy: either (a) its cause was a miscommunication within Gazan's office which led to a misstatement when advising Ethnorama News on the matter - a rather significant communications failure - or (b) this claim is a fabrication on the part of Ethnorama News. I won't claim to know whether it's the former or the latter, but I am certainly curious to know. To give the author(s) the benefit of the doubt, I will say they later claim that Gazan's office subsequently contradicted the claim of UCC involvement, which further indicates disarray in the party's or member's communications strategy as potentially causative.
The author(s) then further claim that Gazan personally contacted them to apologize, and to inform them that the National Post was working on a story about Ethnorama News and John Ryan, but that the staff at Ethnorama could not locate any such story. Another remarkable claim - especially given that it was supposedly made by Leah Gazan herself - but, like with the UCC, there is little reason for Gazan's office or the NDP to conclude from my correspondence that I work for the National Post. In my email to the NDP, I explicitly introduced myself as a freelance writer from Winnipeg. The nature of this claim, again like the previous one, seems either the product of poor communication or embellishment.
INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN JOINT STATEMENT AND ETHNORAMA'S ACCOUNT
"MP Leah Gazan phoned [Ethnorama News], saying she was sorry but there was a story in or was going to be in the National Post about John Ryan's article in Ethnorama. And she needed to stop her ads."
More troubling to me than the potential dishonesty of the author(s) is that the article implicitly frames Gazan's decision to sever her ties with the organization as motivated by the potential for bad publicity, rather than on the basis of principle. Now, I am not so naive to think that politicians are generally motivated by principles over politics - especially when dealing with difficult and contentious issues. But, regardless of Ms. Gazan's real motivations, I would be rather dismayed if Ms. Gazan had articulated her misgivings to the Ethnorama News team in the way that author(s) describe. Not only would this be a rather cynical admission for Gazan to make but, more importantly, it would signal to Ethnorama News that she doesn't see anything wrong with the article as such, further emboldening the team to print misinformation. It would also mean that the language of the statement released by her office was dishonest, as it claims Blaikie and Gazan were motivated by the "spirit of solidarity" in making their decision - not the spirit of political expediency. Given the internal inconsistencies in the author(s) account - and the bitter and combative tone of the article - I have to give Gazan the benefit of the doubt, but, without further clarification from the parties, we have no way of know what was said on that call.
The article then states that "Daniel Blaikie also sent an email saying he would no longer run an ad in Ethnorama, plus owes $750 for five months of ads he has not yet paid for." Besides the somewhat inscrutable sentence structure, I find it interesting that the author(s) felt it necessary to reveal Blaikie's outstanding balance. I somewhat doubt that that was among the significant things Blaikie's office stated in the email - in fact, it reads as a frankly petty attempt by the author(s) to portray Blaikie as financially irresponsible.
"When members of Ethnorama talked with [the] MP for Winnipeg Centre we were told that the real reason for pulling their ads was the (sic) John Ryan’s column was reprinted from a publication that spread (sic) conspiracy theories. The story was reprinted was (sic) from Global Research that is critical of the USA foreign policy but has [a] reputation for being a reputable and outstanding publication."
First, the reason for Blaikie and Gazan's decision, according to them, was a function of the content of the article itself in addition to where it was originally published; according to their joint statement, they acted because "Ethnorama News published... disinformation" which "is harmful to Winnipeg's Ukrainian diaspora." Second, Global Research is not a reputable source, full stop, and the author(s) fail to explain on what standard this assessment is based - I suppose we are to take them at their word. I'm not going to waste my effort re-litigating this issue, so if you want to know more about Global Research and its complete unreliability you can read my first article. Better yet, just go to the site and judge for yourself. You will find it chock full of totally legit articles on such "reputable" topics as 'the Great Reset,' Big Pharma and the 'jab', Ukrainian genocide of Russophones in eastern Ukraine and, *cough cough,* (((globalists))).
EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITY
"One should not conflate the position of Ethnorama with the positions of articles it prints. Ethnorama is committed to printing alternative points of view that are not being covered adequately in mainstream publications."
Two problems: one, that's an unbelievably irresponsible statement to be made by a news publication. Ethnorama certainly should maintain an editorial line, like any professional journalistic enterprise. Two, Ethnorama News makes it clear in this very article that it does, in fact, share Professor Ryan's position on the matter - by repeating and affirming the Kremlin narrative on the conflict - all while heaping effusive praise on his work and that of Global Research. It's laughably absurd to simultaneously confirm your position and then chastise the reader for coming to the conclusion that it is, in fact, your position.
The author(s) seek to reassure us that their concern isn't the loss of ad revenue "but rather the fact that the federal NDP would capitulate to such censorship and infringement on journalistic freedom and commitment to finding the truth" - a problematical statement for a set of interrelated reasons. First, it reiterates the conspiratorial notions that some set of malign and powerful actors manipulated the NDP to withdraw support, rather than allowing that the choice could be the result of meaningful concern or outrage from legitimate stakeholders - e.g. constituents, community organizations, party members, party leadership, etc. Second, it reveals the author(s) unwillingness or inability to recognize that others can meaningfully and legitimately disagree with their positions, which expresses itself in an extreme intolerance to opposing views - ironic, given their professed commitment to "printing alternative points of view."
It seems reasonable to conclude that this form of intolerance likely results in a bias that undercuts Ethnorama's purported status as a publication dedicated to the truth - how can one act as an impartial finder of fact when one is, in fact, a partial seeker of confirmation of preconceptions?
Most revealing is the perceived sense of righteous victimhood embedded within the whole conspiratorial construct. The NDP is by no means engaged in censorship - its members, Blaikie and Gazan, simply withdrew their advertising dollars from Ethrnorama. This is both their prerogative, as well as their responsibility as public servants - that is, sitting Members of Parliament are responsible to the public for the manner in which they use their resources. This remains true regardless of the discretionary power the MP has to determine for themselves what is in the public's interest: if they legitimately feel that an advertising partner is actively spreading what they see as harmful message, they are duty-bound to act accordingly. Indeed, the same prerogative power to withdraw funding to Ethnorama is what enabled them to fund Ethnorama in the first place.
BACK ON THE KREMLIN'S MESSAGE
With their consternation with the NDP laid out, the author(s) then lead into a revealing, if rambling, statement on propaganda:
"We know that propaganda is a big part of building public support for any war. We know that when you can control what people know about history, and current events, that you can control what people think, what they believe to be true and then you can control what they do and what they will support. Ultimately you can control people by feeding them misinformation and biased media coverage. Biased media coverage of the war in Ukraine, and claiming that anything other than supporting more war is believing Russian propaganda, ridicule of facts as the suppression alternative points of view, especially the advance of a peace position a negotiated ceasefire is of concern to all Canadians and indeed the citizens all NATO countries. "
This narrative - implicitly impugning what the author(s) frame as a captured mainstream media, what Heller describes as the 'ideological state apparatus' - is used as the justificatory basis for:
"(D)edicating this issue November 2022 to coverage the (sic) NATO actions provoking this military conflict and preventing a negotiated peace agreement, which on two occasions Russia has offered."
The author(s) end by describing the content of the issue, including introducing the works of Professors Ryan and Heller which I will discuss in subsequent essays. Finally, by way of a historically-confused comparison, the author(s) push the notion that negotiation - i.e., immediate negotiations favourable to Russia - is the just and peaceful way forward, stating that:
"[It] seems we have forgotten. World War II ended with the negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles, and was followed by the implementation of human rights charters, the growth of public social security programs and reparations for the destruction of war."
It seems that the author(s) have forgotten that the Treaty of Versailles came at the end of World War I, not World War II; as for the list of goods received out of it, only reparations fit with the Versailles example - a reparation regime often listed among the causes of World War II. Indeed, it would largely be in the post-World War II period that items like "human rights charters" and "the growth of public security programs" would occur - a war which was only concluded by the military destruction of the Nazi Regime and the unconditional capitulation of the Empire of Japan.1
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, I found it quite difficult to adequately respond to this piece, as describing and deconstructing its circular and self-contradicting arguments in a coherent manner proved to be a challenge. Regardless, I felt it neccessary to try, and, in order to add some coherence to my own argument, I will briefly reiterate the key points of my critique here:
The author(s), presumably the editorial team, fail to take responsibility for the content they publish - a fundamental misunderstanding of their role as a publisher;
Despite denying responsibility and chafing against 'conflation' of their editorial positions with the articles in the publication, the author(s) affirm the content of the article in question by repeating its core talking-points;
The author(s) refuse to recognize the potential validity of opposing views, framing those views as part of a broad, powerful conspiracy to muzzle "the facts";
The author(s) - and, by extension, Ethnorama News as an entity - justify and expound on their continued intent to serve as a platform for disinformation, not only by parroting talking points but through inviting and publishing the contribution of a series of articles by Prof. Ryan and Prof. Heller, among others, further expanding and amplifying the same narrative - elevating themselves from simply republishing online disinformation to being an original source for it;
The author(s) fail to consider the organic political basis for the situation, assuming it to be the product of collusion between big media and pro-war political organizations from afar - rather than an independent investigation and pressure by a local, freelance journalist;
The author(s) choice of publicizing their financial feud with Blaikie is fundamentally unprofessional.
Beyond the factual inaccuracies, sloppy reasoning, and disregard or ignorance of standards of practice, there are certain reoccurring attitudes in this piece I find problematical from a journalistic perspective.
First, the intolerance to other viewpoints, and the view that their opponents are part of a sect of conspirators - rather than being individuals with agency - is almost solipsistic in its inability to recognize other's as capable of drawing sincere, opposing conclusions. That is, the author(s) seem to subscribe to a common belief among conspiratorial thinkers wherein people can be divided into two categories: individual free-thinkers, who are awake to the "facts;" and sheep, who are not individuals per se but rather a unthinking mass, guided by a group of conspirators.2
This solipsistic haughtiness is accompanied by a strong sense of entitlement - i.e., to the NDP's largesse - and a grandiose victim complex - i.e., the idea that powerful forces are conspiring to censor the truth. These attitudes, coupled with an inability to take responsibilty for the content of the publication, and the vindicative attitude towards their former advertising partners, betrays a fundamentally narcissistic tone underlying this piece.
In this vein, the image that introduces the article - that of "free speech" bound by barbed wire - could serve as a sort of journalistic Rorschach test: those sympathetic to the publication see what the author(s) intended - free-speech activists persecuted for speaking truth to power. Those approaching the image more skeptically may sense a degree of melodrama, and perhaps a bit of a persecution complex. But those approaching it with vigilance may see intentionally visceral imagery, designed to shock and anger the reader, to set a tone of confrontation and struggle. In the context of a saturated and polluted informational ecosystem, such as the one we exist in today, one must remain aware of the tools of the would-be propagandist, who - seeking to inflame our baser emotions - whisper vicious libels and self-satisfying fantasies to subtly guide the reader - and the reader's society - towards the propagandist's desired outcome.
Indeed, if we were to use this narrow historical example (i.e. the World Wars) as a means of fabricating an argument in a like manner to the author(s), we could claim something like: only an unsustainable peace can be drawn from a premature negotiated settlement, leaving a delayed, more dangerous conflict inevitable; and that only through the material resolution of the conflict - through the complete political collapse of the responsible imperialistic cadre (who invariably represent a collapsing imperial power) - can a lasting peace be found. Not that I'm trying to make that argument...
The contemporary American experience provides a good example of how the normalization of this type of ideological chauvinism in the popular political discourse, and the concomitant balkanization of formerly-integrated political communities, jeopardizes political institutions - i.e. election denialism.