I live too far down the hills of north London to claim the Hampstead and Highgate Express as my local paper although it is sold outside my tube station. But I know some of the staff and am fully aware of its reputation as just about the highest quality local paper in Britain. It serves a very rich area of the capital whose residents have traditionally been of a leftish, intellectual and Jewish nature. So it is no surprise that some of them are angered at the paper’s decision to accept an election advertisement from the racist British National party who are contesting local elections.
I think that the H&H has done the right thing as journalists and as liberals. They stand accused by both readers and their own staff of giving succour to some very nasty people. One newsperson told the Guardian:
“The company is taking advertising money from the BNP for the Ham & High. It’s wrong. We wouldn’t freelance for the BNP so we don’t want our wages as employees of the Ham & High and Archant paid by them.”
That’s an odd argument. I wouldn’t work for Arsenal football club but I understand why my local paper takes advertising money from them. Anti-racist campaigners have argued that this evil group should not be given a platform. One blogger has gone so far as to suggest that the Ham and High should not even quote the BNP in news stories.
I think this is counter-productive and wrong in principle. As a journalist I believe that you should report reality and not hide from it. As a liberal I am convinced that the best way to counter illiberal views is to treat them on the same terms as you would other political ideologies.
In a practical sense I think it only gives the BNP a propaganda victory if you censor them in any way. I don’t believe in total free speech. If a newspaper doesn’t want to run a BNP advert – or anyone else’s – than that is a question of policy. But for a liberal newspaper not to run the advert and then to claim that it is open and pluralistic would be to show a lack of confidence in the strength of its values.
Labour councillor Theo Blackwell disagrees:
“The editor seems to be really waving a flag over this. He seems to have done this very intentionally as a marker of freedom of speech. Anyone who knows basic civics would say this is more than just giving a platform to the BNP – it’s gone above and beyond that.”
I would suggest that just shows how Labour has failed to convince the people of London. The BNP only gains votes if the electorate thinks it is not providing the housing, jobs and community relations that would make the BNP redundant. This is ultimately about politics not the media.
Yes, you are quite right – it’s very evil of the BNP to use the democratic process to preserve Great Britain for the native British people. The Bolsheviks – the fellow travellers of the current anarchists in UAF, Searchlight, the CST and those other people of a “..leftish, intellectual and Jewish nature” you mention – were far kinder to employ murder and mayhem to get their way.
‘That’s an odd argument. I wouldn’t work for Arsenal football club but I understand why my local paper takes advertising money from them.’
Perhaps the most ridiculous comparison you could have made. You may dislike Arsenal but it does not promote racism, anti-semetism and islamophobia. Once you get into those three areas, you take yourself out of the debate. There isn’t a debate among reasonable people: racism is wrong. End of.
I agree – you analogy with Arsenal is glib.
“This is ultimately about politics not the media”
Only a very purist position would suggest that you can make such a simple dividing line. In this case, less so as the editor of the Ham&High put pen to paper to justify his publication of a BNP ad in the actual edition it appeared in. His defence is also aggressively (see my blog on the day) one in defence of ‘freedom of speech’ making this, in my eyes, much more of a ‘political’ act, albeit one based on an extremely liberal standpoint. Of course local papers do not exist in a bubble, they are very linked to the politics of the area – and taking cash from the BNP in an area with a large Jewish and Muslim population should have triggered some consideration of the paper’s social responsibilities. It clearly didn’t.
Dear Ray and Theo,
Thanks for your comments. The Arsenal reference was supposed to be something of a joke. My point in using it was that different people find different things offensive.
“There isn’t a debate among reasonable people” is one of the most sinister phrases that “reasonable” people can use about principles such as free speech. Abandoning or compromising one ideal in the face of another may sometimes be necessary but it should never be done without debate.
“racism is wrong”: it certainly is but that doesn’t give you a moral high ground over everyone who disagrees with your chosen method of dealing with it.
Theo: the H&H didn’t do this for the money, I am sure we agree about that. Quite the opposite. It may have lost readers. So it must be the principle we are arguing about. I agree that all media – not just local – should be conscious of wider political contexts and responsibilities. To say that the H&H didn’t consider its ‘social responsibilities’ is grossly insulting and I am sure you would agree that you don’t mean that. What you I think you mean is that they disagree with you. Well that is what (local) politics is all about. I suspect a huge part of the H&H readership/constituency would take my view (and the H&H’s) and would be able to be anti-racist but pro-freedom of speech on this issue.
Just out of interest, would you have supported the H&H on free speech grounds had it run an advert advocating the legalisation of sex with children?
[it’d be one placed by a hypothetical paedo organisation that wanted to lower the age of consent but did not advocate breaking the current laws while they’re in place, to avoid any ‘but they’re inciting illegal activity’ get-outs].
If not, you’re already saying that some people should be denied a platform to advocate opinions that they hold perfectly legally, because those opinions are vile and wrong. In which case, the only difference with the BNP is the degree to which the opinions are vile and wrong…