Have you ever been grossly insulted on national radio?
I have. In July last year, I took part in a debate on BBC Radio FiveLive, on the topic of British National Party leader Nick Griffin’s invitation to Queen Elizabeth’s garden party. I was set up in opposition (as these things go) with journalist James MacIntyre, then of the New Statesman, now at Prospect magazine (more of which here).
Anyway, MacIntyre chose to counter my argument — that it would unnecessarily politicise the Queen’s garden party protocol to uninvite Griffin, and ultimately play into the BNP’s martyr mythology — with the accusation that I was an apologist for fascism. To be fair, I wasn’t the only person MacIntyre insulted (he told one caller he was probably a BNP member, despite the fact that the caller had opened his point by saying he despised the BNP’s racism and would never vote for them).
Nonetheless, I was a bit upset by the whole thing. I asked MacIntyre to retract during the course of the interview, and he declined. I later considered requesting a formal retraction, but then figured it really wasn’t worth it, as it was unlikely any sensible listener would take MacIntyre seriously. As far as I know, no one complained to Ofcom about it.
A similar course would appear to have been taken by Councillor Michael Stark of Redbridge, who was called a “Nazi” a “health Nazi” and an “ignorant pig” by radio talk show host John Gaunt in an interview on TalkSport in November 2008 concerning the suitablility of smokers as foster parents. Stark himself, while arguing vehemently with Gaunt on the air, did not complain further.
So other people were offended by Gaunt’s insulting Stark.
Today the High Court ruled that Gaunt’s right to free expression had not been violated by his subsequent suspension and sacking, along with an Ofcom ruling against TalkSport.
Ofcom ruled that Gaunt had breached articles 2.1 and 2.3 of its broadcasting code:
2.1 Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.
2.3 In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context (see meaning of “context” below). Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual orientation). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.
Now, while it’s entirely understandable that Stark should be offended, and even have right to redress, is it really right that Ofcom should allow for people taking offence on behalf of others? The Nazi comment, while over the top, was made during a very heated discussion. And from my hearing of it, Stark was able to give as good as he got (you can listen to the interview below to judge for yourself). While I’m all for solidarity, is it necessary to get offended on behalf of people who don’t feel sufficiently offended to complain themselves?
