Netanyahu
story slanted
I was disappointed with the extremely poor piece of “journalism” and barely comprehensible interview with Samer Elatrash [“Bibi comes to town,” Sept. 5]. It seems Mr. Elatrash, who given his past history is a biased and non-credible source, was given a free pass to broadcast his hateful and incendiary sentiments without reporter Ken Hechtman even making a slight effort to debate the far-fetched myths regarding Israel (eg. the money issue/fundraising tour, Auschwitz borders and hate speech).

Even more surprising was the striking similarity of Mr. Elatrash’s rhetoric to those made by perpetrators of the Black September massacres. When made aware of the refusal to allow a Palestinian delegation to the ’72 Olympics, Abu Mohammed, one of the terrorists, declared, “If they refuse to let us participate, why shouldn’t we penetrate the games in our own way?”

This attempt to deny free speech should be seen as a step backwards. Instead of engaging in healthy, positive discussion, the Black Block would prefer to revert to oppressive and aggressive methods similar to those found in countries such as Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, it’s easy to understand why that specific organization would be barred from attending the speech, as their tactics are commonly known and they barely serve any purpose. As past events have shown, their tactics of heckling and yelling at the speaker, instead of engaging in an intelligent debate, would simply cause more problems and heighten the level of stress felt by everyone involved.

Finally, I couldn’t believe that Hechtman made no reference to the details of the event, nor how anybody could get tickets from Hillel. Does the reporter also believe that the only worthwhile cause in this situation is that of preventing free speech?

If this is the case, your article should not be disguised as objective, open and unbiased reporting, but instead as a road map towards an intolerant, oppressive and censored society.
-Ben Teb

The headline of Ken Hechtman’s story said that it was about the opposition storm surrounding Benjamin Netanyahu’s talk at Concordia. Well, where was the promised story? What I read was an op-ed piece, not a news story. Where were the two sides (as every story has) for the reader to digest?

The heavily opinionated lead said that the man many believe to be most responsible for destroying the Middle East peace process is making an appearance in town and the talk is stirring up a big controversy. That would suggest that there are people opposed to the appearance as well as others supporting it-thus two sides.

But the story doesn’t deliver. It focused exclusively on the grievances of the opponents and didn’t even bother having the supporters answer their claims. Of the 11 paragraphs, only one had any comment from the supporters and it wasn’t even about the central story line. If the quotes from the Hillel reps were that bad, the reporter still had a journalistic imperative to uphold to cover the story from all sides or explain why it was so one-sided. He obviously ignored it and you, his editors, let him.
-B. Martin Sage

Buffalo bull

We live in times of throwaway morality and reduced values. This became all the more clear to me when I came face-to-face with Buffalo’s giant, I mean giant, ad posted on the corner of Sherbrooke and Décarie [Photo of the Week, Sept. 5].

Could someone decode the message here? Young woman sitting/lying on the floor in a provocative manner-and what’s the deal with the hand tugging down her jeans revealing “hot panties”? Is this the latest Kama Sutra pose? Or a sex message about the erogenous areas that get you going? Well, whatever the message, it’s clear that jeans were the last thing on my mind. This ad is shocking and, I must say, it has certainly conquered the outer space but not the inner one. It’s a great showroom window with nothing in the stockroom.
-Vania De Gregorio

Correction

Last week’s Photo of the Week caption stated that the arteVISTA mural would be erected where the Buffalo Jeans ad now hangs, and without the sponsors’ logos. In fact, the mural will hang across the street and will feature sponsor logos, but not their slogans. The Mirror regrets the errors.