The right to publish – and offend

Erica Smith’s article (Women wasting their time fighting other women) in response to All About Eve in Hastings Independent Press reported both criticism of HIP for publishing it and calls for the community newspaper to be boycotted or otherwise punished. Kent Barker, a retired national journalist and longtime volunteer with HIP, but here writing in a personal capacity, takes issue with both reactions.

Publish and be Damned – the maxim of the Daily Mirror’s Hugh Cudlipp – is NOT a course favoured by the Hastings Independent Press (HIP). As a community newspaper HIP seeks to represent all the various sections of its readership in the town. Indeed, its Mission Statement begins by saying so: ‘The newspaper recognises that there will be a wide range of views within the community’.

It was a statement honed after many hours of discussion by its Editorial Management Committee (EMC).  Unlike most newspapers – and contrary, it seems, to popular belief – HIP has no overall editor.  It is a collective and seeks to arrive at decisions by consensus.  Only very rarely are votes called or taken.  Mostly people accept the thrust of discussions and the mood of the meeting.

Core of the EMC

The members of the EMC are all volunteers who write for and edit the paper. There are around 10 sections – News, Community, Features, Arts, etc. – each of which has a section ‘editor’ who sees ‘their’ pages through from finding stories and subbing copy to lay-out and publication.

HIP has only two paid members, the designer and the sales director. All of the above form the core of the EMC, but regular contributors as well as those who volunteer to work on the website and social media side also contribute to EMC meetings, as do the one or two trainees or ‘interns’ HIP may have at any one time.

So the EMC is the decision-making forum and guardian of the paper’s principles, the second of which is that the paper ‘seeks to cover a broad spectrum of views…We are a community newspaper and aim to give a voice to the community.’

But what happens when two sections of the community have diametrically opposed views – as over the Womens’/Trans’ rights issue? The first thing to note is that giving a voice to the community requires the community to let HIP know what it wants to say. And that means offering articles or letters.

HIP’s volunteer section editors do not usually have time to seek out or commission all the material for their pages. They rely on submissions and sometimes press releases. If it is felt a piece that comes in could be contentious, it is likely to be offered to the Opinion page or to Letters.

Both of these pages exist precisely to separate the newspaper itself from individual viewpoints. HIP has no specific editorial policy. That can’t be stated loudly enough. But it believes passionately in carrying diverse views from within the community. This is its ‘raison d’etre’, its mission.

No carte blanche

This is not, of course, a complete carte blanche to publish anything. The paper would not print something that espoused or encouraged breaking the law (even if individual members of the EMC felt the law in question was an ass!). But on subjects of public interest or concerns within the community HIP believes it is its duty to enable diverse views to be aired.

There is a question of whether such views should be ‘fact checked’? If someone is offering their ‘opinion’ or ‘belief’ for publication, HIP generally feels it would be either inappropriate or impossible to check all the assertions. Say someone opined that a tsunami was caused by God’s wrath, how could you possibly fact check it? Nobody can prove whether a god exists, let alone whether s/he has the power to cause a ‘natural’ catastrophe. These are personal beliefs or personal opinions.

In some areas there may be more evidence on one side or the other. But absolute facts about anything can be hard or impossible to ascertain.  So on the whole HIP’s Opinion and Letters editors believe people should be able to include controversial or even questionable statements in their submissions, as long as it is clearly understood that these views are only personal opinions.

HIP believes that the name is on the tin; a page headed Opinion would be seen as the personal opinion of the writer and NOT that of the newspaper. Indeed, many on the newspaper’s EMC might deeply disagree with the opinions being expressed, but would also accept that the writer should still be accorded the opportunity to express those views.

All About Eve

Clearly, and regrettably, this belief was not shared with many of those who profoundly objected to the All About Eve opinion piece HIP carried a month ago. The paper was quickly offered – and published – a contrary view. It also carried dozens of opposing comments on its website and letters in the paper.

What has surprised and saddened the EMC is that many people – including HOT’s Erica Smith – seemed quite unable to distinguish between the views – individual opinions – of writers, and a perceived editorial line – one that the paper simply doesn’t have. Some people even threatened to steal and burn copies of the paper, demanded a boycott of advertising, and castigated the hard-working volunteers.  This seemed not just deeply illiberal, but a worrying attack on free-speech and by extension the freedom of the press.

Do these objectors really want a world where only their own views are mirrored in the media and all other perspectives silenced? In the words ascribed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Many on the left may abhor the views promulgated by the Daily Telegraph or Daily Mail, but they wouldn’t for a moment suggest they should be shut down. If you really don’t like a publication just don’t read it. Don’t try to kill it.

Inaccurate narratives

An example of this intemperance comes from an organisation called the East End Trades Guild, who objected to a reader’s letter published in HIP referring to ‘illegal immigrants’. HIP tries not to use this phrase, recognising, in the words of the Refugee Council, that ‘under international law anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 United Nations Convention’; thus asylum seekers are not ‘illegal’ however they arrive in Britain.

But even though it was a letter writer expressing a personal view, the newspaper was accused of repeating ‘harmful and inaccurate anti-refugee narratives’ and threatened with widespread withdrawal of distribution outlets.

Incomprehensibly, the Trades Guild refused to allow its letter of objection to be published. Even more curiously, the Guild seems to have ignored the huge amount of positive coverage the paper has given to refugees, the Refugee Buddy Project and Safe Havens over the years.  And anyway, isn’t it vital to understand other people’s points of view?

The letter writer’s perception that they are ‘illegal immigrants’ is clearly shared by thousands if not millions in the UK. Reform politicians use the phrase ‘illegal’ immigrants many times a minute on TV and radio. Should we  really censor Nigel Farage and Reform? Aren’t they recognising that a section of society believes the migrants to be illegal? It’s what’s given rise to demonstrations on the streets demanding the closure of asylum-seeker hotels.

You don’t have to agree with them; you may abhor their beliefs, but if you start by censoring those views and preventing them being heard, you’ll likely end up with the burning of books and issuing of fatwas. A free press and free exchange of ideas is what unfettered journalism is about – the very type of journalism that is suppressed by so many authoritarian regimes. Is that really what you want for Britain?

 

Also in: Debate

What’s happening to women’s reproductive rights? »