Wrong on the BNP

Guy Herbert

I don't know. The Ham & High's remarks do read like post hoc justification for an incautious advertising department decision, but I'm not sure that advertising media shouldn't try to obey a cab-rank rule. We have that rule for the bar - and not just for the defence in criminal cases - so that any person may have their case put to the court. Why is the court of public opinion so different? I'd rather have open criticism of advertisers than hidden pressures on media - which is why I don't much like the ASA, either.

Lee Jakeman

There is nothing wrong with publishing something by the BNP. It's WHAT gets published - not WHO'S DOING IT.

TDK

Quite right.

The Telegraph had no obligation to provide a platform for the totalitarian rantings of some extremist group but then the Guardian has no obligation to provide a platform for totalitarian socialists like the SWP or theocratic fascists like Hizb ut-Tahrir. Yet I don't see the latter offering any apology.

The latter even employed an open communist as comments editor who still thought the USSR was hunky dory. I don't see the equivalent even on the much reviled Mail.

JMR

Spot on, Mr Pollard. Living in a democracy means the editor will not mysteriously disappear should he refuse to obey a government order to either print or not publish something.

It doesn't mean the local paper is duty-bound to accept all potential advertising.

There is nothing to stop the BNP using their Archant ad spend to publish their own little 'newspaper' and shove it through the doors of Hampstead.

What it comes down to is editorial discretion, taking into account the sensitivities of loyal readers AND advertisers.

So we can defend the Ham & High's right to grab BNP money while detesting their decision to do so.

But the paper cannot take the moral high ground and claim to be protecting free speech. It was never in danger.

Simon

Would someone here actually explain why they 'detest' the decision to print the ad, other than listing a dozen reasons why they don't like the BNP (none which are "reasons"? What are they worried about? Isn't a better informed electorate healthier for democracy?

SP: "I am not obliged to invite others to post here when I consider their views repellent. Refusing a platform to, say, the BNP to propagandise on this site is not censoring or banning them."

That's because you're publishing a blog - Ham and High publish a newspaper.

While H&H have no legal obligation to run a BNP ad, they certainly have a moral one if they are to call themselves a 'newspaper' with 'journalists', especially during an election campaign of relevance to the readership. If a major newspaper banned advertisements by one of the Labour/Tory/Lib Dems on the grounds that "millions hate them" I doubt you'd be singing the same song.

The "No Platform Policy" wasn't devised to stop the BNP or similar groups from spreading propaganda, or even to prevent "offending" sensitive groups. It exists to hinder the public's access to BNP propaganda. No Platform's supporters think that the most voters are incapable of interpreting BNP material all by themselves. They need 'help' and 'guidance' by those who know better. "No Platform-ists" regularly survive seeing 'raw' BNP propaganda, but they don't want us to see it because we mightn't be so lucky.

JMR: "What it comes down to is editorial discretion, taking into account the sensitivities of loyal readers AND advertisers"
Who'd remain loyal to a newspaper that denied them access to the viewpoint of party standing in a local election? And what are people with 'sensitivities' doing reading a newspaper in the first place?

Ian C

If there is a BNP candidate in its area then there is no reason to refuse their advert. Their readership need to know that this is the case and what their views are, however much the paper disagrees with them. You're not so 'free speech' after all, are you? They are a legal party and media should not pre-select their legit. customers. If media were to constantly do their job right i.e. not to have pre-ordained ideas but to be a source of fact and balanced comment (which is all none too common across th espectrum of both media establishments and journos.) we would all be better informed and thus able to make our minds up with less graft. And we would not have so many 'media outlets' that are in business to make money first by slanting their publications, so distorting facts. If a BNP rep. has a comment that is relevant to your blog you should have to have a darned good reason not to include it. Just look at all the contrary views on some of these blogs. You are being very inconsistent Stephen. You have a tendency to get on a high horse and it's not very attractive.

Ann

And you know this how exactly, dear?

Nick Kaplan

I would agree that there is no obligation to provide a platform to the likes of the BNP (or anyone else), but if one believes in free speech it is surely wrong to condemn those that do provide a platform (unless one is criticising the possible shared beliefs of the platform provider with the BNP as opposed to the actual provision of a platform).

Herbert Thornton

I should have thought that an editor should be free to publish - or reject - any advertisements whatsoever so long as they don't contravene the law. If he chooses to increase profits by taking advertisements from unpopular people, that is his business alone. Clamour or pressure from politicians or journalists for him to reject advertisements that they disapprove of is an attempt at de facto censorship.

On the other hand, a magazine or newspaper may claim to be a forum where all sorts of opinions disliked by the Establishment are aired. If it makes a claim like that, but in fact excludes opinions that it or the Establishment dislike - e.g. the opinions of the BNP - is it not demonstrating that its claim to be a forum for all kinds of opinion is hypocritical?

Does this criticism fit The Coffee House?