This document is part of a periodical (Smith's Report).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.
Briefly, the offices of a satirical French weekly newspaper, Charlie Hebdo (Charlie Weekly) were firebombed the first week in November http://tinyurl.com/68sq7jy . Charlie, which has a history of publishing cartoons and other materials offensive to many Muslims, was scheduled to publish a special edition of the paper purporting to have Muhammad Himself as guest editor. In addition to the firebombing, Charlie’s website was hacked and replaced with an image of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and the words ”No God but Allah.”
These events led to an unusually public discussion in France about the issue of a free press. The prime minister, François Fillon, said: "Freedom of expression is an inalienable value of democracy and any incursion against press freedom must be condemned with the utmost force.” The interior minister, Claude Guéant, said: "You like or you don't like Charlie Hebdo, but it's a newspaper. Press freedom is sacrosanct for the French." François Hollande, the Socialist presidential candidate, told Le Monde newspaper the incident demonstrated that the struggle for press freedom and "respect of opinions" was a permanent battle, adding that "fundamentalism must be eradicated in all its forms". I was rather surprised to discover such sentiments in Paris, considering the French history with persecuting and jailing those who do not follow the State line on the H. story.
When a story on the Charlie incident was published in The Wall Street Journal, there were a number of online comments touching on the issue of a free press during which the question of a free press for Holocaust revisionism came up. Okay. It happens. But it seldom goes any further. There is no appetite in mainline journalism in America for discussing the right of the citizen to discuss revisionist arguments in public. This time something unlikely happened. Michael Santomauro, who runs the revisionist news service Reporter’s Notebook (http://tinyurl.com/7w9gtfk), entered the as-yet-unformed discussion to point out the, let’s say, hypocritical statements regarding a free press by French politicos. He received a thoughtful reply by one Alan Sherman. Here I will reproduce only the final paragraph of Sherman’s response to Santomauro.
“I don't know you, nor have I read your book. I just find it curious that Holocaust deniers (shall we say ‘skeptics’) will ply their trade as ‘legitimate discussion’, irrespective of the mountains of evidence recorded by the perpetrators who thought the world would thank them. Contrast this with the fictitious work above where there is not even a tiny fraction of the amount of written or photographic evidence. Not to mention no living eyewitnesses. Yet, nobody ever calls slavery into question.”
And here is where Santomauro posted in the comments section of The Wall Street Journal a 28-point outline of H. revisionist questions/arguments. I’m reprinting Santomauro’s 28 points here not because they will be new to you— to the contrary—but because this kind of exchange of ideas with regard to the H. story has been verboten in every segment of the American press for decades now. And yet here it is—on The Wall Street Journal’s website. The guys who are taking care of this section of the WSJ’s website know exactly what they are doing, and those who supervise the guys who are taking care of this section of the WSJ’s website know exactly what they are doing. This is nothing like an oversight. It is the result of a series of conscious decisions. Here then is a substantial part of what Michael Santomauro posted to the Wall Street Journal ‘s website:
[The above was not the end of it. I will add only a few lines of what Santomauro posted in the Comments section of the WSJ’s website.]
Additional information about this document
|Title:||Michael Santomauro (he’s our guy!) In "The Wall Street Journal"?|
|Sources:||Smith’s Report, no. 187, December 2011, pp. 10-13|
|First posted on CODOH:||Dec. 11, 2015, 7:15 p.m.|
|Comments:||Editor's comment: WHAT a piece of garbage! I’ve edited the print version extensively, including renumbering the points (#13 was omitted, reducing the count by 1). I further changed references to the Wall Street Journal to make it clear that this caper went down on the paper’s WEBSITE, not in the pages of the paper edition, nor in an article. This guy is a schlockmeister. WHY it contains no link to the article, with comments thread, I simply can’t image.|