Ezra - great investigation but surely you must be wrong (either that or Ryerson has the losist (as in loser) standards for Professors)as I never realized anyone could be a full professor with only a BA and use the title of "Dr"?
Now I can as lived in Italy for awhile and anyone with a BA there can call him/herself "Doctor".
Is he perhaps from Italy, India or Pakistan?
Dr. LS
He must one of those tacky people who call themselves Doctor after gaining an honourary degree.
Great find - I had my suspicions of this chap.
“John Gordon Miller has been an award-winning reporter, a senior news executive, chair of Ryerson’s journalism school, an author, a teacher, a researcher and a consultant.
He’s been professor of journalism at Ryerson for 22 years, following a 20-year career as an editor and reporter. Most of that was spent at the Toronto Star...”
The Toronto Star gave him away.
"Journalism Doctor" and "Doctor of Journalism" ring very differently to me. The latter suggests a PhD, I think, but not so much the former. Compare "Love Doctor." Even being a medical doctor is not the same thing as having a doctorate in medicine. So I don't think it should really be very misleading.
But as for academic standards, I think they generally used to be less formal - academia has become more competitive and specialized in the last 40 years - you couldn't really get a professorship now without a PhD, probably, but it was a different story once upon a time. Not that I know anything about the situation in journalism specifically.
Ezra, I love you.
Dr. Louise
Well well well, he who pontificates on Journalistic Standards doesn't even have a PHD tisk tisk. So what makes him an expert again?
Nice catch Ezra.
This is what we have allowed into Canada:
Further teachings found at khalidmosque.com, official website of Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque in western Toronto:
Islamic guidelines to women.
The enemies of Islam know the importance of Hijab and the value of remaining at home ... They therefore vehemently attack Hijab ... They hate Islam and us. They wish to see our demise and downfall.
What is the ruling regarding a head scarf (that fails to cover ears and neck)?
The head scarf is a compromise and there is no such thing in Islam!
Save the women.
Once (a Muslim woman) becomes introduced to the wickedness of Western ideology and concepts ... (she) becomes fixated on trying to appear and act like her "role models" of corruption.
What is Islam's position on female circumcision?
It is an honour for women but not obligatory.
Is it permitted for a Muslim woman to pierce her nose?
It serves no purpose, and causes pain and mutilation.
Excessive laughter.
This problem is widespread, especially among the youth.
http://www.thestar.com/article/535278
I find this case the most puzzling in many aspects. Much like the "Silver Blaze" mystery,there is to my knowledge, a complete lack of his young dogs barking or his fellow old mutts from way back when at "Rot Stern" hacking.
Is this just some lame class project or a Cpl Klinger style initiative?
That journalism degree, was it Pass or Honours? Just askin'.
Miller said "surely you don't take all that appears on this site to be factual, do you?"
Now you know what he meant.
Holy crap! I know that standards in education have been slipping, but this is unbelievable. I'm with Mark Steyn on this one: the Ryerson journalism students should demand their money back...with interest...and suitable compensation for pain and suffering!
So if I got this right John Miller is basically a nobody who managed to parlay a bunch of speaking engagements into a set of perceived accomplishments. How typically left wing! Par for the course I'd say, windbag philosophy a-la-Jack Layton.
Now for a more serious note:
anti-Semitic content on the website of a mosque (since removed)
http://www.thestar.com/article/535278
Hey Burney, how about informing Barb Hall eh? (I will not hold my breath).
I don't know who this Poobah is, and what he's pontificated over in the past. However, he's an uneducated boob, according to the resume. The fact that Ryerson is called a "university" and has given full professorship to someone with a 1965 BA in English, is stunning. There are supposed to be controls over such things (external to the university). He must have developed a program on social engineering in the media, something like Certificate in Maoism for Middle-Class Students, circa 1968.
A slur on the memory of Hunter S. Thompson, a.k.a. Raoul Duke, a real "doctor of journalism".
At least Thompson never expected anybody to take his "gonzo journalism" seriously.
Hey John! it's only journalism, it isn't like it's something real...
John, can you accept Ezra's apology? you're reading this are you not...?
on the second to last page of your CV, you state you addressed an annual conference of the Canadian Association of Journalists, meeting in Vancouver on the topic: "The Citizen Journalist: How to get back in touch with readers" April 1999.
Is this the sort of getting in touch you had in mind Dr. John?
Do you care to respond ?
David Gladdying, Ryerson used to be the school to go to for journalism, just like Osgoode Hall used to be the law school of repute. What a shame that our grand old academic institutions have become such shams.
That journalism degree, was it Pass or Honours? Just askin'.
b_C
==========================
Maybe he found it in a popcorn box.
Another would be Emperor with no cloths.
Hey Ezra
So you've taken a couple of shots at me (you went first, remember)and I've taken a shot at you. Where are we at?
The editors at J-Source, a journalism website, have asked me to approach you about the prospect of us facing off on freedom of speech vs. responsibility in an e-mail debate that they will put up on their site.
Interested? I see it as an online conversation, more intense than a long-distance bombardment which we are doing at the moment. It will afford us the chance to actually answer and parry each others' comments.
I am extending this offer with a generous incentive: You get to go first.
Let me know what you think.
John
How many blows to the head would it take to come up with the observation that journalism is too "right-wing" in Canada?
This must be what they do at J-school, I gather, constant blows to the head until all rational thought is extinguished.
Ezra,
I think the pseudo-professor has thrown down the gauntlet. The man is trying to save his badly demolished reputation...I am not sure why he would insist on being further humiliated in public, in real time, in front of a real audience but, hey, I think you should grant him this prerogative.
Maybe then, he can be promoted to TA at Ryerson?
Hey, John Miller wants to debate.
I think that's a great idea. So much so that I want to debate Miller myself.
Here's the ground rules; You get to state your position, and then I get to call the cops, and the Human Rights commission, who will then bring the resources of the federal government to bear against you. It costs me nothing to do this, while you pay for lawyers to defend your side of the debate from your own pocket. You also get to get fired from your teaching position at a university, something that happened to a real, actual Phd, Terry Tremaine. Then, when you lose the debate, you get to spend as much time in jail as Brad Love, who was jailed for having incorrect opinions in a debate in Canada.
How does that sound, Dr... I mean Comrade Miller?
John Miller's world view reminds me of an interview of Sam Harris about his book "Letter to a christian nation":
There is no way around the fact that I’m advocating a certain kind of intolerance, but it is not political intolerance. I’m not saying that people should be jailed for their religious beliefs. I am saying, however, that certain beliefs are so lacking in merit that there should be no question of our “respecting” them. People who claim to be certain about things they cannot be certain about should meet resistance in our discourse. This happens quite naturally on every subject but religion. For instance, a person who believes that Elvis is still alive is very unlikely to get promoted to a position of great power and responsibility in our society. Neither will a person who believes that the holocaust was a hoax. But people who believe equally irrational things about God and the bible are now running our country. This is genuinely terrifying. We must find a way of criticizing and marginalizing bad ideas, even when they come under the cloak of religion.
I think in the same sense Mr. Miller should be marginalized in the forum of public discourse. Political correctness is just another form of dogma and seems to not be subject to the normal rules of criticism in main stream media. Time to change this.
Nice website John...good lord did I laugh when I read "what I do"...
"expert witness".
I at first thought this was a joke...but it is serious. Man, a first for everything I guess.
Arabs brainwashed little girls to hate Jews.
There are literally dozens of such clips on youtube...such nice folks...moving next door to you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z...h?
v=ZL0C2QvqIlo
I applaud John Miller's courage to stand up for his beliefs and debate Ezra Levant.
But I'm suspicious with the way he has phrased things already:
"Free Speech vs. Responsibility"
"Responsibility" is a very interesting word. Much like a game of chess, I already suspect I know Miller's game plan. Here are some possibilities:
- Was it "responsible" for Mark Steyn to publish a book that caused disharmony with Muslims in the West?
- Was it "responsible" for Ezra to defend a Christian minister who was saying nasty things about homosexuals?
- Was it "responsible" for Ezra, Mark, and dozens of others to criticize an appointed public official like Jennifer Lynch and the other officials across the country trying to establish human rights for the oppressed people of this nation?
Yes, Yes, and Yes. But John Miller will NEVER see this for such things deeply conflict with his worldview. He's the kind of person who frequently says at social gatherings, "I'm a very open minded person." But talk with him a little more and you'll quickly learn that he's only open minded IF YOU AGREE WITH HIM.
So a debate would be entertaining but it'll not accomplish anything in the end equation.
I have just read a post signed, ostensibly, by one John Miller. I assume someone has checked this for authenticity. Good.
John has written that he relishes "the prospect of us facing off on freedom of speech vs. responsibility."
That's what the gentleman said, that freedom of speech is the opposite of "responsibility."
This craven dullard is a professor of journalism. O Ryerson, what a hole in the wall.
Quack-quack-quack hope the 'doctor' flies south for the winter!
This spin-doctor, with a degree acquired from a match-book cover, vociferous with tenure flatulence is a marvel to behold.
Poor is the student whose education 'depends ' { soiled} on illiberal persuasions .
"My point is that you just don't usually have Miller's kind of righteous preening from folks whose formal education is an English degree earned at London, Ontario 43 years ago."
Oh but you do, Ezra. He obviously has a desperate desire to be a great academic. By his standards (and most people's) he's failed, but managed to hide it. Those are the ones who sneer.
ErnstG is right to the point: those Socialists occasionally pretend to accept civilized debate, but the whole Socialist idea is to have government bureaucrats impose their opinions on normal people through the use of police force.
A civilized relationship where people treat one another as equals is by definition the very thing Socialists won't have with others.
Anyone who approves of the existence of anti-Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals should be exposed as the thug he is and be denied the opportunity to pose as a normal debater. Particularly if he has already been exposed as an incompetent fraud.
Couldn't that Miller be another of those "official Jews" who have more to do with violent censorship than with Judaism?
I think I ought to moderate my previous comment somewhat about standards in education slipping with respect to Prof. John Miller not having a PhD. Of course there is more than one way to get an education and I have no problem with someone who has years of "real-life" experience in a particular field and who has made significant contributions to that field becoming a professor. To my (non-PhD) eyes, after reading his CV, I'm not certain that John Miller meets the criteria. However, in spite of my disagreements with John Miller, one has to respect his (apparently genuine) offer for debate. This is the way it ought to be done in the “free market place of ideas” and I encourage you to debate him. May the man with the best ideas win. Oh, and by the way…my money is on you, Ezra. =)
Didn't Hunter Thompson go on his drug-fueled fear and loathing excursions under the guise of a "doctor" of journalism?
Any parallels here?
Dear John joins a line of other expert witnesses - particularly those for the CHRC.
How on earth can they fund their moral and ethical public commitments and obligations?
They all remind me of the old cowboy western "Have Gun will Travel".
Dr. LS (Expert on the universe and nuclear physics)
An old piece of wisdom- -YOU HAVE ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING WHEN YOU HAVE BESTED A FOOL.
While you may have fun doing it , such a debate would only legitimize him and make him a hero to the rest of the idiots out there. There would be more big money Burney grants out there for him.Raise the profile of a fool? Dont lower yourself.
Fake Phd claims. Narcissistic personality disorder.
Hold Mr Miller's debate in the office of the Ryerson Provost. After it's over, give him a broom and invite him to go back to his (new) job.
Ryerson has a great tradition of hiring great teachers... NOT!
Here's a link to an article about another Ryerson professor, Gerald Hannon. If my memory serves correct he was an advocate, if not president, for the Canadian chapter of NAMBL, the National Association for Man-Boy Love.
Ring any bells?
Here's an article about it.
http://www.clga.ca/Material/Reco...n/ox/
hannon.htm
Just to liven things up, shouldn't an invitation ALSO be issued to that world-eminent scholar, Dr. Lucy van Pelt?
http://bltchemistry.com/wp-conte...tor%
20stand.jpg
Aaarrghhh!
Ezra,
Tsk. You criticize John Miller. Who are you going to disagree with next? Einstein?
Jennifer Lynch has stated that "human rights complaints are essentially the "back end" of the process". That is, problem solving that a mere intellectual can handle. It takes a particular genius to prevent discrimination!
From the horse’s mouth:
"I think Albert Einstein would be impressed...The Nobel-prize-winning scientist once observed that intellectuals solve problems, but geniuses prevent them. So thank you all for showing up to apply your particular genius to the prevention of discrimination."
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/media_ro...&
content_type=2
Thirty years, and the CHRC is just getting started on the "front end".
God help us.
Why not accept his offer, Ezra? He doesn't know what he's up against. I see Shirlene McGovern Part II.
As an earlier commenter speculated, perhaps he has an honorary degree--but you'd think that would appear in his CV somewhere.
By calling himself "Journalism Doctor", he must realize that folks will assume a PhD. But the self-aggrandizing goes a lot further than academic and professional dishonesty (as "irresponsible" as that already is)!
If you look at his site, he's not just selling himself as a doctor OF journalism, but more explicitly as a doctor FOR journalism. In Miller's mind, journalism is sick, diseased, and dying--and he is the physician who can heal the grand old profession.
Although he acts humble and speaks the rhetoric of liberal white guilt, he can't hide fact that he thinks of himself as journalism's saviour. It's not going too far to call this a messiah complex. If you listen to his language, he uses the word "Journalist" the same as a cult follower would say "True Believer", and he articulates his vision of "responsible journalism" in a way that leaves no room for dissent. If you don't do things his way, you aren't worthy of the title of capital-J Journalist!
I see that Dr. Miller has characterized the debate as "freedom of speech v. responsibility". A classic left-wing word trick, suggesting that freedom of speech can't be used responsibly, without government oppression to keep it in check. According to Dr. Miller, freedom of speech is at odds with the concept of responsibility. Typical left-wing disdain for the little people. Don't give them freedom. They'll just use it irresponsibly. Don't let them keep the money they earn. They'll just buy beer and popcorn.
QUOTE: am extending this offer with a generous incentive: You get to go first.
Let me know what you think.
John
LOL for the love of god man drop the plucking shovel and run. You are so out of Ezra's league, join Toast Masters if you have the nagging need to hear your own voice pontificate 24/7.
Ezra if you take him up on his narcisisstic offer might I suggest that the debate take place in a vat of jello whilst you two wear grape smugglers (speedos)???????????
So the perfesser is a prominent journalist on the government censorship side of this conflict is he...funny...I've never heard of him before.
Josef Goebbels and Julius Stricker could have honestly said as much...and frequently did. When the reporter's beat is maligning the politically despised and those who have....ahem...abused their power and privilege...the job is not the most noble livelihood one might choose.
Stricker, at least, had the balls to defy the censors of his day when he was paying his dues. "Journalism" in support of a totalitarian ideology is called in German "propaganda". In English that translates "public relations". I am a graduate of Mount Saint Vincent...an institution which specializes in teaching this abuse of the time honoured philosophical study of rhetoric.
I love my new self-obtained title. I am now ready to perform open heart surgery.
Sincerely,
Dr. werth
Okay, okay, we've all had the point made that Miller is an idiot. But as I asked in a previous post; what is anyone going to do about it?
Are we here, and the population in general, going to begin to question Big Government and begin to insist that candidates who speak up for limited government stand the best chance of being elected?
Is there a political party to vote for that wants to end post secondary funding, to end ever increasing Medicare budgets, to repeal smoking bans?
Our poor journalism faith healer doesn't quite get yet that he's been shot to bits.
Could it be that in attempting to get Ezra's attention he is actually trying for some real world credibility?
What sort of university has BA "professors"? Is John in need of some "affirmative action" to maintain his employment?
Ezra, don't "debate" the jerk over at his pal's website. Why give THEIR pathetic website a big goose in traffic?!
FARK 'EM!!!
He's a pathetic has-been ex-Torstar reporter who can't fade quietly into retirement tending his macrobiotic garden. IGNORE HIM TO DEATH!!!! The thing he craves MOST is attention ...deny him any more attention!
I am extending this offer with a generous incentive: You get to go first. - John Miller
I don't know if the journalism doctor is being funny, disingenuous or just plain ignorant, but anyone who has ever debated knows that the there is nothing generous about letting one's opponent go first -- the preferred position in a debate is always to have the last word; it means you can say something possibly unanticipated by your opponent, parry his final blows and make unanswered attacks.
Was the topic, free speech vs. responsibility suggested by you, John, or by J-source? Do you really want to debate this topic? Surely you know it's a false dichotomy. More precisely, the moment you set this up as if the two were in contention with each other you reveal your own shallow understanding of journalism. Is it irresponsible to support Free Speech? Clearly the opposite is true, and anyone who thinks so does not belong in the field of journalism!
Hunter s Thompson had an honorary Phd. I really resent any comparison of a great man like him and a geek like Miller. Ole Hunter would be the loudest advocate of absolute free speech. And he'd probably gun down the HRC types and say he mistook them for giant porcupines.-- That excuse worked for him once.
If John Miller were serious, he should have got in touch with Ezra personally, not through his blog.
He's a grandstander. Of course, by going public here, Miller has put Ezra in the position of being damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Such a gentleman ...
Mr./Dr. (whichever of your multiple personalities you are today) Miller... you could have just left your mouth closed and let us think you were a fool or open it and...
Ezra leave this fool alone... he's at Ryerson for cripes sakes... not exactly Stanford or Harvard!!! We need you to fight bigger battles. Leave the "minor leaguers" to pad their websites with BS. Don't dumb down to this dude!!!
Beyond his false title as a Doctor he's awarded himself, I find this little quote amazingly funny.
"When journalists act responsibly, I defend them. When they do wrong, I can be their sternest critic. When they want to learn to get better, I show them how."
The last part is what's fantastic. Mr. Miller has no Phd, not even a MA, yet he presumes he can show every journalist how to be better. That would presume he's THE BEST, and above that, only his ideals/philosophy are correct.
That's pretty pompous to say the least.
All I can say is that Johnny is no J.D. MacFarlane, the hard-nosed newshound who came up through the ranks of the now long-defuct Toronto Telegram, and who headed the Ryerson Journalism program when I was a student there, way back in the day. http://www.rrj.ca/issue/1996/spring/205/ (As an aside, my City Politics instructor was none other than Smilin' Jack Layton. He has more hair and wore tighter jeans back them, but he was every bit as earnest and humourless back then as he is today.)
Old J.D. was a toughie, but sort of sweet in a Front Page kind of way. He would have had little patience for the likes of "Dr." Miller and his squishy Liberal guilt complex. We will not see his like again, alas.
This post illustrates the true difference between the two men. Ezra can admit when he made a mistake while the good Doctor continues to wiggle and squirm and tries to confuse the issue in an attempt to salvage what is left of his diminishing reputation. Regardless of all else, all you have is your reputation and Miller's is shot.
Any time wasted on this clown just serves to give him credibility. He is so far beneath you Ezra that it's not worth your time. Play with him for awhile but cut him adrift ASAP. He's just another disillusioned hippy who is still trying to understand why the whole world didn't follow him and his "flower power" chums straight into the sewer they were trying to steer civilization with their moon-bat ideas and nonsensical philosophies.
Ezra, you need to laugh sometimes:
Door to Door Atheist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l...h?
v=l7wOz5a6yns
.
DR EH? - hmmm....
Self hating, passive-aggressive?
Self ingratiating?
No concept of "I have a dream..." re: speech by MLK
Mr/DR? Miller - for Gods sake get over your sad sorry guilt complex.
.
Looking at the title the twerp chose for the debate , free speech vs responsibility , suggests he's trying to frame the event to confuse the issue. Calling discrimination and censorship "responsibility" is typical of the left wing to call a thing by its opposite. The inverted logic. Orwellian vocabulary, of the ministry of truth .
Freedom is what they want for themselves and deny to others.Stalinism with herbal tea and a narcissistic dose of liberal guilt.What would their utopia look like with prisons and gag orders ?
"Old J.D. was a toughie, but sort of sweet in a Front Page kind of way"
Interesting you should mention that style, because it was disappearing when I started, but I did manage to catch a glimpse of it. It was about getting stories because somebody didn't want you to, and it really didn't matter much who those people were or what party they belonged to. And sometimes it was just about pissing off important people and that was fun too.
Now it's social work and saving the world or at least promoting certain beliefs.
Do it Ezra!! But on live radio, you do good radio and I'm sure the good doctor would agree to it /sarc
Dr. Kelly
On balance, there is little to be gained by debating John Miller and giving him the higher profile he was seeking when he tried to intrude himself into the Maclean's BC trial.
Leave him a nonentity, overpaid as a professor of journalism for which position he lacks any qualifications of note. In fact, he's toxic in this position as he clearly promotes "I want to change the world" pretend journalism i.e. propaganda rather than "I'll find and report the facts no matter whose ox is gored" actual reporting, a dying art.
More importantly, the way he phrased his proposed debate reveals zero understanding that tying down free speech with the notion of what mediocre minds like his find "responsible" would have suppressed all the advances of Western civilization which started out as unpopular ideas. They were surely labelled "irresponsible" by the John Millers of yesteryear.
Libs always try to appropriate the good words. If he's arguing for "responsibility", then ergo, any audience gets the subliminal message that Ezra must be arguing for irresponsibility. Why not change the topic to "free speech vs censorship"? That's what Miller is arguing for, cloaked in the lovely word "responsibility", just as the biggest assault on human rights is made by something called "human rights commissions". How far do you think socialists would have gotten if they'd called their plan Western-Economy-Destroying Global Welfare instead of "Kyoto"?
Whatever, Miller does not have the stature for this debate despite his jumped up title at Ryerson. Ezra is a giant who has managed to resurrect Canadian free speech rights from near death within a year. Miller is simply one of thousands of anonymous intellectual pygmies who were busy suffocating it in dark alleys across the land.
Wait a minute...scotch the debate idea entirely. Was there any debate when the vile HRC's were created and increasingly funded through NGO's in backrooms pressuring gullible politicians? That process rolled along and over hundreds of voiceless citizens with no debate whatsoever. Now that it's being rolled back even a hair's breadth, they want a debate? No thanks. Just another delaying tactic and attempt to obfuscate. Roll things back to no Section 13 and THEN debate whether freedom of speech should be curtailed by state bureaucrats with special powers not available to police or courts, the DEBATE THAT NEVER WAS.
Actually..bar-b-quing "affirmative action" Miller on a couple of radio massacres would be nice.
Shirleeenette needs some company.
Dear Mr. Levant (and Mr. Miller, if you're still reading):
I advise you to get a hold of a book that was published in Britain in 2005. It is called "Free Expression Is No Offence," edited by Lisa Appignanesi.
The book is a collection of essays by PEN activists who opposed Prime Minister Tony Blair's repeated attempts to introduce a law that would have criminalized written or spoken attacks on religion.
In one essay, Philip Hensher writes:
"Free speech must be used responsibly. Everyone must understand that. Who decides if speech is being used responsibly? Why, the authorities. Home Office ministers. The rule of law. The authorities in the United States will decide whether protest is a responsible use of free speech. So will the authorities in Iran, who have their own views on responsibility. The necrocracy of North Korea would find absolutely nothing to quarrel with in the notion that speech must be exercised responsibly. Nor would any Chinese regime of the last fifty years. Responsibility is in the eye of the Government, the Church, the Roi Soleil, the Spanish Inquisition, and, no doubt, Ivan the Terrible."
In other words, the "free speech must be used responsibly" argument is often employed by statists who seek the regulation or censorship of speech, usually in the name of public order or social peace. "Free speech must be used responsibly" is not an argument used to further individual liberty.
Unfortunately, this book is not easily found in North America. You'd have to get the paperback from a vendor in Britain. English PEN might have a few copies for sale. But the book is well worth reading if you can get it.
Just one more jab at the title of "doctor"...the infamous Dr Josef Mengele had a doctoral degree in "racial studies"....I understand it is now no longer PC to offer that course on the syllabus...just goes to show the sort of travesties that post secondary institutions are willing to dress up in the cap and gown of scholarship.
Commenting by HaloScan
