In a parallel universe, just suppose I'd stayed there? I was quite happy blogging for the Times. Today I would have resigned. Why you may ask? Well the owners of the Times are Newsquest group. Today I read this story in the Tory Troll blog. Newsquest are taking money from the BNP to place adverts at the top of the page in the Stourbridge News, one of their local papers (recognise the familiar layout).
What in effect this means is that bosses of the group are having their pockets lined by an organisation which said on National TV that no black person is British. Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP told Andrew Neil that even Johnson Beharry VC, one of the bravest people alive today on this Island CANNOT consider himself British.
There is another serious point to be made here. When dealing with organisations such as the BNP in a country with free speech, we have difficult dilemmas. Should they be allowed to advertise on a local paper? I view their politics rather like I view cigarettes. The are toxic, so you can't advertise them. I'd allow them access to debates where their views can be challenged, but I'd not let them peddle their dangerous wares unopposed. They sell the lie that they are patriotic, but British values are ones of freedom, tolerance and honesty. The BNP oppose all of these.
I don't want my writings to appear under a BNP masthead or ever be associated with them. That is why I would have resigned. Rather strangely, this blog is the opposite of the one I thought I would be writing today. As you will have read in the Barnet Eye over the weekend, the Barnet Times has dropped it's pro-Tory policy. There was further evidence of this today, with the publication of two letters supporting the Campaign to stop warden cuts. I was going to say well done to the Times. I'm sorry to say that, given who is paying the wages there, I can't.
I am not saying Rebecca, Elizabeth or Tom or any of the rest of our crew locally are BNP supporters, far from it, they are probably unaware of these adverts at the moment. I must say that if I was a journalist on the group, I'd go on strike until the adverts stopped. I am sure that they are all in the NUJ and would get supported. I know that even journalists have to pay the rent, so it's not easy, but sometimes you have to do wth right thing.
I personally would never ever knowingly allow the BNP to be promoted by my efforts.
Roger, the NUJ's guidelines on 'race' are available here (I hope) www.nuj.org.uk/getfile.php?id=388
ReplyDeleteUsually it refers to editorial, rather than advertising, but clause 6. might apply:
6. The NUJ recognises the right of members to withhold their labour on grounds of conscience
where employers are providing a platform for racist propaganda.
The Ham and High (Archant group) ran an advert from the BNP last year. Article about it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/16/archant.pressandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed=media
I think Bromsgrove (West Midlands) is an area where the BNP is doing quite well. I don't know if we will get BNP adverts in the paper locally - there was one in the Ham & High! Wish I'd been more aware about it: I'm getting good at picketing - but I would hope that readers would protest if they do, including picketing the offices.
I don't think we can put all the onus on the journalists, but I'm sure if they have any nous they will complain about this. The readers and residents have to act on this as well.
The BNP make a great deal about free speech, but they are fascists and since when were fascists respecters of free speech? I don't advocate state bans on the BNP, but I think anyone that has the power to prevent them having a platform is stupid not to use it.
The Bromsgrove Advertiser might be stupid about this, and they might just be greedy for the advertising revenue. I don't see where free speech comes into it.
Rog
ReplyDeleteI had rather hoped that the banner ads on Newsquest were Google ads which are content driven and not the responsibility of the site owner, but that does not appear to be the case.
Local newspapers should be wary of accepting advertising from any political party, mainstream or not, because it is always going to offend some of its readers. A bit of polite pressure on the paper’s owners might do the trick.
Are you not aware of electoral regulations? Any party that stands has to be offered the same coverage that is afforded to others. You should know that, given you consistent arguments that councils and politicians follow the 'rules'.
ReplyDelete"Pat"
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find that advertising & coverage are two completely different things. I guess I'll put that lack of knowledge down to your age nd lack of experience.
I take it you'd like more BNP advertising then?
Unlike you, I don't believe in censorship. I see no reason to curtail the BNP's activities as a part of the electoral process. People will decide; that's the thing about democracy. History has shown that outlawing things your don't like only serves to legitimise them in the minds of some people. I personally have faith in people to decide for themselves.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, when you start trying to be clever, you should ascertain the facts first. You neither know my age or my experience. Your comment shows the childish side of your approach to those who do not agree with you.
Equally, you also don't seem to know that it is illegal to refuse to accept advertising, if offered openly, from any business or organisation. Such a step is a restrictive practice.
"Pat" (or whoever you are),
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you this question. You state that you are at work.You've viewed my blog 40 odd times since noon, you state that your IT manager has also taken an active interest in my blog.
Most people I know don't spend the afternoon at work, looking at my blog, in collusion with the firms IT department, do they?
I can only surmise that you have a professional iterest in my blog, therefore I really see no point engaging you any further in this discussion, unless you declare what that interest is.