Boycott; the saga continues
(Paul Sagar of the Bad Conscience blog submitted this as a guest post in defence of the collective decision of this website to ask for a boycott of the Total Politics top blogs poll, should they go ahead with a Nick Griffin interview. Hyperbolic image choice is, naturally, mine – Ed).
The question of whether to boycott Total Politics magazine’s top blogs poll if it runs an interview with Nick Griffin is proving divisive. Giles is sceptical. More surprisingly, so is Sunder.
I wanted to set out why I think bloggers of the left should support the boycott.
Firstly, let me say that I am not a uniform supporter of No Platform. The world is too messy and complicated to apply one position to every circumstance. Thus, I was not opposed to Griffin appearing on TV per se but (for reasons that turned out to be off-target) to his appearing on Question Time because of that particular show’s format. With hindsight, however, the QT appearance did Griffin more harm than good. His odious personality and his cringing attempts to be loveable showed him up. Badly.
Yet a printed interview aimed at nerdy political anoraks is different. Griffin’s weakest asset is his face and his personality. He’s not TV-genic, and he doesn’t know how to behave under public scrutiny. In a magazine interview, those things don’t matter. No matter how “tough” Iain Dale’s questions, Griffin can lie and squirm around them. The crucial thing that made the QT appearance a glorious disaster was that people could see him squirming, hear his lies automatically challenged. Not so with a published interview.
But what really matters is not whether Griffin flounders on Dale’s questions or not. It’s about the long-run effect of having Griffin feature in a mainstream publication. Long after the specific questions that Dale asks are forgotten, people will remember that Griffin was interviewed by an (allegedly) respectable, mainstream publication. It will help to normalise Griffin and his party. It will encourage him to be seen as a legitimate politician with legitimate views to be considered a reasonable political option by reasonable people.
At present, the BNP is held back in huge measure because it lacks popular legitimacy. Its leader is largely seen as unpleasant and devious, the party as fascist and suspect. The BNP are still stigmatised in the eyes of the vast majority of voters. What the BNP desperately want is to break out of that, and to be seen as a reasonable political choice. That’s the only way they can move beyond the (already considerable) million people who voted for them last June, and into the political mainstream.
Sure, the BNP thrive in deprived areas on their status as underdog outsiders. That’s something we should worry about. But the solution is not to normalise them by ending their status as outsiders, making them a legitimate political choice in the eyes of the electorate! Yet by interviewing Griffin, in the long run Total Politics can only serve to normalise the BNP as a part of Britain’s political mainstream.
Now let me be clear: one thing I am not advocating is state curtailment of Total Politics’ activities. As an independent organisation, they can invite Griffin if they want to. It’s Iain Dale’s professional decision. In a democracy with freedom of press, he can interview Griffin if he wants. By the same token, those of us who oppose the legitimation of the BNP as a political force can withdraw our support for Total Politics, and do so by boycotting their poll with the hope of making it redundant, and thus hurting Total Politics.
Yet there is one final big question to ask: why does Total Politics want to interview Griffin? An obvious answer is that controversy attracts attention and shifts units. That may be all there is to it. But it’s worth noticing that the BNP are not presently a threat to the Tories – they are a threat to Labour. Traditional Labour areas – where the white working class feels abandoned, disempowered and angry – are what the BNP target. One does have to wonder if Dale would be quite so prepared to interview Griffin if the BNP leader was targeting Chelsea rather than Dagenham this spring.
The disagreement needn’t be excessively divisive – and Paul’s initial call took some care over stressing that. But one leap I struggle with is from arguing/campaigning against Total Politics decision to withdrawing from something else it is involved in as the tool for that.
The broadsheet newspapers have interviewed Griffin. There might be reasons why the weeklies or a monthly shouldn’t, but the mainstreaming argument
On the final point about party interest as the motivatation: this probably doesn’t stand up given that Total Politics did interview Nigel Farage, who may well pose the Tories more problems than Griffin does Labour. (Of course, it should not be controversial to interview Farage as it is Griffin: I am not equating the two, but responding to the partisan interest point, which I think overestimates the reach and influence of Total Politics considerably).
I think you missed a bit off your second paragraph there Sunder.
On the subject of the difference between broadsheets and weeklies/monthlies, getting a quote and doing a full fledged interview are qualitatively different. I don’t know of a broadsheet that has done the latter – but in any case, I don’t buy them either.
I agree with you about motivation; the most I’d be willing to say is that it’s controversialist – and no doubt Mr. Dale delights in that.
What of Iain Dale’s clearly stated (and quite notorious) policy of not linking to blogs/bloggers that are critical of him? He has stated quite clearly in the past that he refuses to do so because he does not want to legitimise them:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2010/03/iain-dale_nick-griffin.asp
How is this in keeping with his current postion that granting Griffin this exposure doesn’t legitimise him?
The boycott sort of sums it all up really.
the far left really do not believe in freedom of speech or tackling the issues that really matter to peoples lives. They live in their cosy little world and have no interest in allowing anything that might cause require them to discard their rose coloured glasses.
Fortunately political freedom still reigns in the UK and long may it do so (despite the attempts of Labour and the EHRC)
kevin – the fact that your comment is published rather destroys your point, don’t you think?
that and the intelligent, measured debate here which takes in a range of opinions.
Tim – excellent point.
Sunder – we can agree to disagree overall, but good point re Farage. Though I do wondre if Dale would have interviewed Farage a month before a general election. And anyway, Farage is already basically mainstream, and UKIP seen by many as legitimate. I think Griffin is qualitatively different, and signficantly so.
Er, Kevin
“the far left really do not believe in freedom of speech or tackling the issues that really matter to peoples lives. They live in their cosy little world and have no interest in allowing anything that might cause require them to discard their rose coloured glasses.”
it’s usually a good idea to read the original piece before leaving a comment.
did you notice the bit where I said i didn’t want the state to intervene? no, because you didn’t bother to read my piece.
idiot.
What I do find interesting are the attacks on the idea that end “…I prefer to be active on the streets fighting against Griffin” etc etc. Well, so do I. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Of course Dale interviewed Farage – the man wants to take John Bercow’s seat, and there’s no-one Dale hates more than Bercow!
Paul and Dave,
Yes, I think there is obviously a legitimate point of view on your side of the argument.
As it happens, there have been several full scale print interviews in the newspapers.
I recalled there was an Observer magazine a long time back: looking it up, it was 2002. It was also something of an investigative/scrutinising profile on Griffin’s history within the far right and claim to be mainstreaming it, etc.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2002/sep/01/features.magazine37
The S.Indy asked a black staff journalist to interview him after the elections, etc
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/transcript-of-ithe-iosi-interview-with-nick-griffin-1704933.html
I suppose the only difference between Total Politics and the Observer or Sindy is that this blog – and Paul S.’s blog – aren’t associated with the Observer or Sindy. We are associated with Total Politics, by virtue of taking part in their poll of blogs. We use our limited influence how we can.
I concur with Dave that the main rationale for seeking a boycott of Total Politics rather than a mainstream paper is that we at least stand some chance of success – how much, only time will tell (and of course how successful it is will be measured using different criteria by both sides). It’s a question of political realism.
I’ll be blogging a ‘last word’ blog on this matter later on, calling out the right on a hypocrisy which sees them content to stamp on freedom of speech and association when it comes, say, to trade union solidarity (I don’t remember BA management being called ‘Stalinists’, as Daley referred to us last night on his blog, when they used the power of the law to stop BA workers implementing their right to withdraw their labour). Must find my Polyani book first, though.
Just to say, rather late in the day, that I am joining the boycott, for what it’s worth…
Sagar: before dismissing Kevin as an idiot did you read the bit in Mill which expands freedom of speech into a social concept rather than one purely defined in terms of the state?
Idiot
To try and restrict another’s freedom to speak is clearly contrary to the ideals that underpin freedom of speech. That does not make the position invalid. But it is best to be realistic about what one is advocating.
Sorry Barney, I doubt “Kevin” has ever read JS Mill – he is in fact a BNP member who regularly trolls other blogs.
On the subject you bring up, however, what part of the freedom to speak, however social, consists of the right to have an interview published in a magazine?
The Press as a whole are rather problematic for Mill’s concept of freedom of speech. Editors decide the question of what people can and cannot hear every day. Freedom of speech in the real world, rather than in Mill, does not exist in a vacuum and thereby Mill’s contention that we should be as contrary and blind as we like as long as we do not decide for everyone else is plainly invalid.
At no time does everyone have equal access to the media, and nor will that ever be the case in a system based on private property, where the whims of owners (expressed openly or covertly) or the profit motive (through subscriptions or advertisement) or implicit ideology (recognized as ‘common sense’, or the various half-baked ideas that stem from our traditions and every-day practices) are allowed to influence things through individuals with no accountability.
So long as we tolerate such a system, then all that remains is for us to exert pressure where we can, as a political movement, to prejudice things in our favour. I find it interesting that we should stand condemned for it, whilst the others who practice it as a matter of course are simply the legitimate editors and journalists and what have you.
If Paul’s an idiot, bearing in mind he knows his JS Mill ten times better than I do, for I never had the patience with it, then I’m happy to be one too.
Sorry Barney, I doubt “Kevin” has ever read JS Mill – he is in fact a BNP member who regularly trolls other blogs.
1. I do not troll other blog – point me in the direction of any blog that I have trolled.
2. I am nmot a member of the BNP thanks to the EHRC closing the membership of the political party. fortunately the membership is now open and when I can get through on the phone I will be joining.
3. how do you know i have not read JS Mill? In fact I studied Priniples of Political Economy and JS Mills views on weealth and the material when I did my degree. While I don’t agree with a lot of what he proposed some ideals are sound.
Well, this one, since you ask – I can’t be bothered hunting down other examples. And I doubted you had read JS Mill based on your blog.
As a side note how does Mills apply to the arguement of giving Griffin an interview.
If we look at the principles of harm then it could be agrued that by allowing a platform for Griffin will cause harm to potential migrants to the UK as he argues for closure of borders and an end to migration. But we can also say that by denying a platform for Griffin to speak then harm will be caused to people who are seeking hosuing in the UK but are denied it because the housing is given to migrants. So Mills can be used to argue effectively for both sides.
I think the arguemnt for denying a platform Griffin is not based in Mills but Feinbergs principle of offence. IE your feelings are hurt. Mill’s principles do not allow for hurt feelings to be used as a basis for his principle of hurt and how it relates to society and liberty.
As someone making the argument for denying Griffin a platform, I’ve outlined across every article I’ve written on the subject that it’s not to do with offence-giving or taking. Trying to colour the No Platform policy as an attempt to stop people giving offence might fit with the narrative the BNP have about “political correctness”, but it’s nonsense.
It might even be correct, for some sections of the Left, but not for me and other Marxists, and not for Paul Sagar. Perhaps it might be a good idea, as Paul suggested, to read what you’re commenting on.
I look forward to your boycott of The Guardian. Today they have also interviewed Nick Griffin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/13/nick-griffin-margaret-hodge-barking-dagenham
But I wouldn’t expect you to be consistent….
@20: There’s nothing inconsistent about seeking to promote a boycott where we have at least some chance of being effective, as with TP. As it turns out, it does look as though we’re going to be less effective than we’d like, and in the end it’s not that important in the scale of things.
With the Guardian, we would have no effect, even though I think it is the wrong step for them to take. I personally think John Harris is an utter prat who would understand proper conceptions of freedom of speech and action if they hit him on the head from a great height.
Of course, what is inconsistent is to:
a) go on about how important civil liberties/freedom of speech is when it comes to political beliefs you loathe, and that the best way to defeat the opposition is through open and transparent debate;
b) support the curtailing through legal means of the freedom of groups of people to come together and defend their rights through collective action e.g. http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-part-in-downfall-of-dock-labour.html
But we wouldn’t expect you to be consistent.