He’s opens his case!

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on July 24th, 2017 at 08:26 am

Mark Steyn answers Media Watch (and reader) criticism of his July 25 piece in The Australian, about which punctuation-challenged Media Watch claims:

Mark wants to prove that multiculturalism is not just wrong, it’s dangerous, and he’s opens his case like this.

And he’s closes his case convincingly. Please read. Of course, being of the right, Steyn is a predictable target for Media Watch, which largely ignores journalistic errors committed by entities and individuals associated with the left, including Terry Lane, DavidMarr, Alan Ramsey, Alison Broinowski, The Age, Richard Ackland, SBS, Michael Gawenda, Phillip Adams, Paul McGeough, Tracee Hutchison, Margo Kingston, The Sydney Morning Herald, John Cleary, Nick Grimm, Peter Lloyd

Media Watch executive producer Peter McEvoy once claimed to be “more than happy to come down on some lefty columnists if we catch them stuffing up”. Catch them? An English wicketkeeper would be a safer bet.

Posted by Tim B. on 08/01/2005 at 10:19 AM
    1. He seems to be admitting he screwed up with the Brazilian, which is someting.

      Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 08 01 at 12:36 PM • permalink


    1. And, as I commented on my blog, I noticed that MW got all sniffy about Steyn not answering their questions. In fact, he offered to be interviewed by MW on air; an offer which they declined. Hence their questions went unanswered. However, they still thought it fitting to whinge, without conceding that he gave them an opportunity to put questions to him.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2005 08 01 at 12:49 PM • permalink


    1. Last night , SBS news again featured golden martyr boy hicks as number one. Number two was the “we bombed the Australian embassy because of iraq” statement from indonesian bomber. This ahead of the awful monsoon devastation in India
      And ABC lauched into a full frontal attack on Andrew Bolt. They managed to screen a speech by an english Immam practising the art of taqiya to convince us that all muslims condemn the London bombings.
      I think it is high time someone launched a Watch SBS and media watch blog site.

      Posted by davo on 2005 08 01 at 03:13 PM • permalink


    1. MediaWatch Targeting Policy: If a person is on the right and that person uses information which is even remotely questionable that peson deserves the slipper.

      Remember the only question is as to when not whether this meeting took place. THATS IT! Johnelle Bryant is vague as to the date in any case (Bryant says “between the end of April and the middle of May 2000”).

      Posted by lingus4 on 2005 08 01 at 03:28 PM • permalink


    1. davo put me down as a contributor to that blog.

      Posted by lingus4 on 2005 08 01 at 03:29 PM • permalink


    1. Anyone else have the feeling that David Marr may have had more than a little input into last night’s Media Watch?
      Coming so soon after his dust-up on the Insiders it was simply a ‘never mind the facts get stuck into Bolta’ attack that had Marr’s imprint all over it.
      If he wasn’t involved he sure programmed Lizzie well.

      Posted by Harold on 2005 08 01 at 05:26 PM • permalink


    1. i am leaving my Queensland billabong paradise and my beloved orchids to fly to Londonistan and attend my daughter’s wedding to a young Brazilian who for reasons of idiocy from the foraign office was denied residency papers until now. He could well have been shot for running away from what he would have taken to be immigration officers.
      In the meantime every Somali or Eritrean muslim terrorist is given immediate British residency permit.
      Brazil and Australia are not on the list of priority “victim” countries.
      So the choice is now clear and Steyn is somewhat right.
      Walk slowly and get blown up my terrorists or run and get shot my trigger happy police.
      The Only mammals in London that are not targets of the islamists are surely the DEER in Richmond park and thats where i’ll be heading for a stroll of an Avo!

      Posted by davo on 2005 08 01 at 06:17 PM • permalink


    1. I’ve noticed they’ve not updated the viewer comments (8.18am local time). Not that I think they will use ours…

      BTW how Soviet that they will
      only allow comments that they approve of…

      Not at all like a real blog


      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 01 at 06:20 PM • permalink


    1. I’d like to float the suggestion that from now on Mediawatch be referred to as “LEFT WING PUBLICALLY-FUNDED THINK TANK, MEDIAWATCH.”

      How’s that sound?

      Posted by fudge on 2005 08 01 at 06:33 PM • permalink


    1. And this really annoyed me:

      And Mark, we’d also like to know what evidence you have for your claim that multiculturalists have:

      …taken a relaxed view of the more, ah, robust forms of cultural diversity — Sydney gang rapes…

      — The Australian, 25 July 2005

      If it were true, we’d agree it’s outrageous, but show us some ‘where and when’.

      You want proof Ms Jackson? Here it is, fresh from today’s Australian newspaper.

      AUSTRALIAN girls as young as 14 have been flown overseas and forced to marry older men in an attempt by their families to protect them from promiscuity and Western influences at home.

      The Australian embassy in Beirut has been approached by 12 women in the past two years – seven of them minors – (no, that’s actually five women and seven children – Nora) seeking help to return to Australia to escape arranged marriages.

      Two years Ms Jackson and this only comes to light after the London bombings. There, that’s your proof.

      Now, what are you and Media Watch going to do about it?


      I thought so.


      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 01 at 06:41 PM • permalink


    1. For those who have read the Media Watch fax, linked to in #2, is it just sheer stupidity, or breathtaking arrogance that makes them ask Mark Steyn – in that ever so patronizing way – to explain just why he chose to tell the Mohamed Atta story.  Jeez Louise, read the frickin’ article and you’ll know why.

      As for requiring evidence of the multicultis ‘relaxed’ attitude to ethnic rapes, etc., the Media Watchers know they’re on safe ground here, because the evidence is all negative.  It’s the absence of outrage from the usual suspects, who are otherwise having fits of the vapours over poor little David Hicks, or Johnny Guantanamo and his dog-collar, etc.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2005 08 01 at 06:53 PM • permalink


    1. Sorry, I just don’t get it.

      As much as I’m loathe to say it, MW seems to have a case.

      Steyn repeats Bryant’s claim that she met Atta in April/May 2000.  MW says that Atta did not enter the US until well after that.  MW did not suggest that Bryant was not working for the USDA.  Despite this, Steyn rebutts as if this had been the claim.

      Where is the proof, which refutes MW’s argument, that Atta was in the US at the time Bryant claims to have met him?

      Posted by murph on 2005 08 01 at 06:53 PM • permalink


    1. The Age and The SMH are pussies when it comes to shameless Leftie bias.
      Try The Canberra Times (“to serve the national city and through it the nation” as the mast hilariously proclaims) without retching…

      Posted by Honkie Hammer on 2005 08 01 at 07:00 PM • permalink


    1. #12 Murph, go back to the Mark Steyn link, and read the next response, in which he addresses the Johnelle Bryant story directly, and makes a very good case that the onus of proof rests with those who want to say her story is false.  Not much use against the ‘gotcha’ journalism of Media Watch, admittedly.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2005 08 01 at 07:33 PM • permalink


    1. The Canberra Times exists only to fellate The Minister for Graffiti, John Stanhope, whenever he tells them to.

      Posted by Happy John on 2005 08 01 at 07:39 PM • permalink


    1. lingus4:
      MediaWatch Targeting Policy: If a person is on the right and that person uses information which is even remotely questionable that peson deserves the slipper.Its not even a matter of the information presented by the right being remotely questionable.
      It can be a piece of reality that offends our friends at the Media Watch headquarters. Any facts which destroy their left wing fantasies just drive the moonbats into a howling rage.

      Posted by Jono on 2005 08 01 at 08:08 PM • permalink


    1. You’ve all missed the best bit. In attempting to rebut Andrew Bolt’s claim that the Islamic Information Services Network of Australia deals in Islamist hatred, MW tenders the evidence that (a) the IISNA forbids the killing of any non-Muslim who has a “peace treaty” with Muslims (have you and I signed one of those things yet, Tim?) and (b) that they released this statement a day after the London bombings:

      We as Muslims we would like to pay our condolences to those who have suffered through this. We dislike terror regardless where it comes from. Whomever was behind this — whether they’re Jews, Christians, Buddhist monks, Muslims. We as Muslims condemn that action… We dislike any person or any group that causes terror.

      Yeah, right—it might have been those Jews, I guess, or those bloodthirsty monks. And “disliking” terror? That’s fighting talk!

      Posted by Imre on 2005 08 01 at 08:21 PM • permalink


    1. Oh,
      Our post at Media Watch is up with this ‘moderators comment’Dear Nick,
      Steyn has still not responded to our questions about validating the Johnelle Bryant story. His website comments are just more speculation.


      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 01 at 08:27 PM • permalink


    1. Gee, poor old Mark Steyn, his career and credibility now in tatters because he won’t return Media Watch’s calls.  Oh well, Mark, it was a nice ride while it lasted.  I expect to see you selling The Big Issue any day now, while the the Media Watchers sail past you in their Bentleys, laughing as their wheels throw up a splash of muddy gutter water that hits you in the face…

      Posted by cuckoo on 2005 08 01 at 08:42 PM • permalink


    1. Lets say MediaWatch is right and Bryant got her dates wrong (which is the most logical explanation). Does that mean whatever else Bryant says is wrong? Of course not.

      I seem to recall a certain individual spending Christmas of ‘68 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia ….

      Posted by lingus4 on 2005 08 01 at 08:57 PM • permalink


    1. Please explain how the United States has any legal juristiction over David Hicks.
      (or anybody else in Afghanistan)As I understand it, Hicks has never been in the United States, nor in any country where the US is the de jure or de facto government.

      So how has he broken US law?
      If he has broken US law, why is the trial not being held in the US, under normal US legal procedures?

      This is a serious legal question.
      No ad hominems,
      No spray,
      No allegations, thank you.
      Just legal reasoning, if you don’t mind.

      Posted by pog-ma-thon on 2005 08 01 at 09:12 PM • permalink


    1. wrong thread, sorry!

      Posted by pog-ma-thon on 2005 08 01 at 09:13 PM • permalink


    1. In MediaWatch’s letter to Steyn of 29 July, 2005 MW said you “dont have interviews on the program”. Is that correct? I seem to remember Stuart Littlemore interviewing someone for the whole 15 minutes back in his days …. anyone recall who? or when?

      Posted by lingus4 on 2005 08 01 at 09:24 PM • permalink


    1. #23 Lingus, you’re right, but those were always ‘special episodes’, in which the whole 15 minutes was devoted to an interview with a single guest, so the Media Watchers are at least right about something.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2005 08 01 at 09:35 PM • permalink


    1. MW has finally dropped all pretence at even-handedness. It could have balanced attacks on Steyn and Bolt with Marr’s hilarious “white pastors” blunder and The Age’s silent embarrassment about lifting a terrorism-supporting reporter’s work from The Guardian, a piece that led to the Guardian’s executive editor’s resignation.
      The upshot is that consumers looking for balance now take a brief sneering glance at MW and move right along. Not good for anyone.

      Posted by slatts on 2005 08 01 at 10:01 PM • permalink


    1. Media Watch has well and truly jumped the shark.

      The programme had some credibility in its ealy days, and served a useful purpose in “keeping the bastards honest” and dished out some well deserved kicks in the bum to the media, regardless of political colouration.

      It is now a thinly veiled sniping forum for the perpetually outraged lefties that inhabit the ABC’s sheltered workshop.

      It has become a joke. I actually burst into laughter when the talking head bagged Mark Steyn and the Bolta in quick succession.

      Talk about nailing your colours to the mast.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2005 08 01 at 10:57 PM • permalink


    1. #23 Yes Lingus, I remember that!
      If I recall correctly, it was Col Allan, editor of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, in 2000 I think.
      Thank you for all your excellent comments by-the-way!

      Posted by Brian on 2005 08 01 at 10:59 PM • permalink


    1. Former editor I should say.

      Posted by Brian on 2005 08 01 at 11:02 PM • permalink


    1. IMRE

      We as Muslims we would like to pay our condolences to those who have suffered through this. We dislike terror regardless where it comes from.

      A masterful piece of taqiya to soften the enemy and encouraged by the Koran.
      I had asked Andrew to read Bat Yeor’s ‘Islam and Dhimmitude which deals extensively with this subject and offers arguments to refute the ABC attacks.
      Any “peace treaty” with the kaffur is in fact a Hudna and not permanent. Israel has experienced these pauses in jihadists activites for the last fifty years.  yet its leaders have continually failed to understand the nature of the eternal Jihad against it Had they identified it and communicated it to the Europeans , Israel would not today be viewed as being a pariah state under the control of Zionist imperialism. This cunning deception was engineered by Arafat who cleverly realized that the western countries would adopt the “plight of the Palestinians” only if it was cloaked in a secular territorial envelope and not in its real form of Islamic Jihad.
      Hudnas are merely periods of rest and rearmament for the continuation of the fight against the Infidel.

      We are dealing with an ABC that is largely ignorant of Islam, hence knowledge is the best defense.

      Posted by davo on 2005 08 01 at 11:04 PM • permalink


    1. I just like to add to what davo said by saying even though I greatly admire Tony Blair, one thing he repeatedly says is patently false. His constant refrain that acts of terror are the result of a ‘perversion of the noble faith of Islam’ simply doesn’t hold water. I completely understand why he says it, but that doesn’t change the fact that far from being one of the “great religions” Islam is barbarous relic irreconcilable with modern, democratic, WESTERN values!

      Posted by Brian on 2005 08 01 at 11:26 PM • permalink


    1. Brian – It’s not just Blair crapping on about perversions of Islam. Howard, Bush; they all say that.

      In fact, Howard said it recently during his widely lauded response to a journo’s silly question at the Blair/Howard press conference in the UK.

      It’s about time that our leaders started calling a spade a spade. Terrorist bombers *are* legitimate Muslims, whose actions have doctrinal support.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2005 08 01 at 11:49 PM • permalink


    1. The Steyn issue is just a front for MW having a go at someone who dares to question multiculturalism. The article could have been written by Muffin the Mule and got a similar response. This is a worry, Is MW a check of journalistic practices or of ‘incorrect thought’? Either way, it stinks.

      Posted by Nic on 2005 08 02 at 12:07 AM • permalink


    1. Bingo I think I found it: Monday 10th July, 1996 …. here is the link


      Hat tip to Brian for the Col Allan info.

      So MediaWatch does have interviews on the program … lets see them slither out of this one …

      Posted by lingus4 on 2005 08 02 at 12:17 AM • permalink


    1. Lingus4 – not wishing to go into bat for MediaWatch, however I think that if you need to go back to 1996 to find an interview, more than enough time has passed for the interview policy at MW to change.

      I admit Media Watch would probably hold one of its victims to that kind of unreasonable timeframe, however I don’t see why we should sink to their level.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2005 08 02 at 12:22 AM • permalink


    1. James,

      How about 6 November, 2000?



      Posted by lingus4 on 2005 08 02 at 12:42 AM • permalink


    1. Getting warmer, but five years is still a long time… perhaps something in the Marr reign or, better still, a MW interview by Liz Jackson would be prime beef. Sadly, I can’t remember one, though I have missed several.

      Incidentally, how is MW’s slogan? “Everybody loves it until they’re on it”. No wonder those ABCistas are so surprised every time Howard wins an election! They truly believe everyone’s with them – they reckon we’re all effete carping lefties who think MW is great and does lots of valuable work.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2005 08 02 at 01:00 AM • permalink


    1. Perhaps the Watch Witch should avail herself of the miracle of Google sometime, and peruse this site conveniently listed adjacent to the ABC’s MW. Save all that nasty sniping and allegations of racism and cultural insensitivity, or wouldn’t that sit well with the corporation’s allocated status of untouchable sacred cow for Islam?*

      *Surely this should be the status of Hinduism.

      Posted by Habib on 2005 08 02 at 01:13 AM • permalink


    1. Media Watch claims to have built an unrivalled record of exposing media shenanigans since it first went to air in 1989. If MediaWatch wants to take credit for work since ‘89 they should take responsibility for it too.

      Posted by lingus4 on 2005 08 02 at 01:22 AM • permalink


    1. Are you mad,Tim – there ARE no journalistic mistakes committed by the Left of course.
      Ask Margo.
      We are dealing with an abc that is largely ignorant of Islam—except that Negus has written a book about it and Doogue TWO books about it and they must never watch their own plethora of docos dramas – or maybe they actually believe them.
      Ignorance in this case is NO excuse.

      Posted by crash on 2005 08 02 at 01:50 AM • permalink


    1. That passage linked is a bit confusing.

      It is a sin to kill someone who has a peace treaty with the muslims.


      Allah commands you to kill those who:

      1. Who are at war with Muslims
      2. Who do not have a peace treaty with Muslims
      3. Those who are not living under Muslim rule.

      If you interpret this as [(1 and 2) or 3] then Allah commands Muslims to kill non-believers even though killing one who has a treaty with the Muslims is a sin.

      On the other hand if you interpret this as [1 and (2 or 3)] then the 2nd statement and 3rd statement is superfluous since if 1. is true then 2. is also true since you can’t be at war with someone you have a peace treaty with. And if 2. is true then then [(1. or 2.)] will always be true. Also if 1. is false then [1. and (2. or 3.)] will always evaluate false.

      Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2005 08 02 at 02:21 AM • permalink


    1. I reckon getting flayed on Media Watch these days is a badge of honour and credibility; it’s not exactly cruel and unusual punishment either, somewhat more like being savaged by a sheep.

      Posted by Habib on 2005 08 02 at 02:45 AM • permalink


    1. Cuckoo, I’ve just got around to reading the PDF on MW site. They e-mail Mark on Friday fire a load of questions and demand a reply COB?

      ::roll eyes:: sadly that was a trick I was taught to use in my MSM days – wait until it was unlikely to get a comment and run with ‘so-and-so couldn’t be contacted for comment’.

      Loved the reply from Mark’s office – be happy to do an live interview any time.

      Aaah, that’ll be the day….

      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 02 at 02:58 AM • permalink


    1. drscroogemcduck

      Allah commands you to kill those who:

      1. Who are at war with Muslims
      2. Who do not have a peace treaty with Muslims
      3. Those who are not living under Muslim rule.

      perhaps those who are DEEMED to be at war with muslims is closer to the reality.

      And true dhimmies are protected perhaps Negus et al know this and are acting accordingly!

      Posted by davo on 2005 08 02 at 03:36 AM • permalink


    1. Crikey’s “Squatter” email today editorialised: `Mark Day criticised host Liz Jackson earlier this year for not having enough strong opinions. Last night’s episode was arguably her most opinionated yet and News Ltd scribblers like Andrew Bolt, Luke McIlween and Mark Steyn copped heavy lashings,’ going on to highlight the issue of the rugby league player’s plagiarism as the great test for Fairfax and the Australian media. So some think Media Watch last night might have turned the corner, predictably. (Though is Mark Steyn really a News Ltd scribbler?) I know MW operates on a higher plane, but wouldn’t you fit in a correction of David Marr for the pure ironic entertainment value?

      Posted by Andrew R on 2005 08 02 at 09:07 AM • permalink


    1. Incidentally, where does Media Watch’s prissy “We think it’s far better than burning their books.” come from? Did Steyn say anything that could sanely (or even insanely) be construed as advocating burning anyone’s books?

      Posted by Otter on 2005 08 02 at 11:36 AM • permalink


    1. Otter – I was mystified by that as well. What was Liz Jackson trying to suggest when she uttered that with such a smirking, smug, holier-than-thou demeanour?

      Posted by James Waterton on 2005 08 02 at 02:11 PM • permalink


    1. mediawatch is what you get when your more interested in providing entertainment rather than serious discussion on the media.

      all they do each week is pick a conservative target from their list of undesirables and get thin lizzie to throw darts at them.

      it might be good fun for a while but when you actually analyse the subject mediawatch is the one shown up as massaging the truth.

      Posted by vinny on 2005 08 02 at 05:54 PM • permalink


    1. #31 James,
      You’re right of course, it’s just that a direct Bush/Howard quote didn’t come to mind.

      Posted by Brian on 2005 08 02 at 10:27 PM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the “pending” list and you won’t be able to log in. All accounts that are “pending” for more than one week will be deleted.