Why did the Guardian run a recruiting add for the BNP?

Mike Ion Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:28:27 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

What on earth was the Guardian doing accepting an advert (placed by the GLA) for a researcher for the BNP?

I have no doubt that Guardian executives will justify their decision to on the grounds of liberty and free speech but it is disappointing nonetheless. Or am I over-reacting? Is their decision based upon principle or profit? I have always thought that the Guardian was keen on  promoting good community relations but perhaps it is more concerned with boosting it's profit margins?

The advert has now been taken down - though it was due to stay on the Guardian site until July 18th.







tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Why did the Guardian run a recruiting add for the BNP? | 26 comments (26 topical)

Re: Guardian ran a recruiting add for the BNP (#1)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:30:59 AM GMT

What???


Re: Guardian ran a recruiting add for the BNP (#2)

by TonyH on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:21:01 PM GMT

Show's a little BNP incompetence - surely they should've advertised in the Mail...


[ Parent ]

Re: Guardian ran a recruiting add for the BNP (#3)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:59:39 PM GMT

I was once watching Never Mind the Buzzcocks, and a GMTV presenter who used to be a fashion columnist for the Mail was asked by Simon Amstell: "What does one wear to a lynching?"


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#4)

by matt1986 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:03:01 PM GMT

I really don't see the problem, and I think Daniel Finkelstein is over-reacting. It was a stupid idea to post the advert in the Guardian - how many Guardian readers will be up for the job? - but so what? The party has democratically elected representatives who, like those from any other party, need assistance to carry out their job. It seems perfectly reasonable, in order to get that assistance, to advertise in the press. (I really hope I didn't need to put at the beginning of this message, "I despise the BNP, but....")


Re: Why did the Guardian... (#5)

by doctordunc on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:04:39 PM GMT

Just because they have the right to advertise, doesn't mean that anybody is under any compulsion to assist them in that way, nor to take their money.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#6)

by AngryVoter on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:37:03 PM GMT

"Slippery slope" argument.

As much as we all dislike the BNP and it's divisive  politics we have to accept that it's a valid political party and it gains votes. [Though, around a pityful 1%]


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#8)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM GMT

They are growing. But it does not mean that we have to help them in anyway.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#9)

by AngryVoter on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:02:06 PM GMT

Not in any meaningful way, they're trying to hit Auld-Labour seats with no credible opposition [such as Stoke and Barking and Dagenham]

At most I wouldn't expect more than an additional percent. They're trying to gain ground in this "area" I live in, South Derbys, East Staffs and NW Leics. It's doubtful they'd gain any significant headway anyhow.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#25)

by bigpapi on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:19:14 PM GMT

I realise this is nothing to do with The Guardian taking the GLA advert, which I actually don't disagree with, but I do disagree with your comment.  Here are a few statistics from local government by-elections in June/July:

Carlisle City Council (Upperby Ward) BNP 19% +7.3% on May 2007;

Welwyn Hatfield District Council (Hatfield Central Ward) BNP standing for the first time 10.8%;

Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council (Chadwell Heath Ward) BNP standing for the first time 25.1%;

Bexley London Borough Council (Christchurch Ward) BNP stading for the first time 17.3%;

Derbyshire County Council (Eckington Ward) BNP standing for the first time 11%;

Havering London Borough Council (South Hornchurch Ward) BNP standing for the first time 21.2%;

Corsham Town Council (Corsham Ward) BNP 7.9%;

Redbridge London Borough Council (Cranbrook Ward) BNP standing for the first time 1.3%

Knaresborough Town Council (Knaresborough East Ward) BNP 5.4%;

This does not include three seats in which the BNP vote declined marginally.

My point is that to dismiss the BNP as a political irrelevance is a fatal mistake; they have a growing nationwide support; nine councillors on my City Council shows the mistake we have made in ignoring them.  What we have proved however, is that where you take them on "toe-to-toe" we can beat them and regain seats.  However, I stress again, complacency is fatal.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#14)

by doctordunc on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:18:05 PM GMT

It itsn't a slippery-slope argument.  A slippery-slope argument would be to say that if we oppose newspapers running adverts for the BNP, next we'll oppose them doing so for the Conservative Party, and before long the whole bedrock of our democratic system will be undermined...  My argument is quite a simple one: the Guardian is clearly opposed to the politics of the BNP.  Therefore it has every right (and, the extension of this, should embrace this right) to refuse to help it in any way.  That isn't denying that the BNP gets votes (nor even that it's a valid political party, though we may debate that elsewhere), it is just not assisting it to get any more votes.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#7)

by matt1986 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:50:11 PM GMT

Yes, I completely agree, but no-one is saying the Guardian was forced to accept the advert, or take any money, are they?


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#15)

by doctordunc on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:20:33 PM GMT

No they're not.  I think there is an implication that because the BNP are 'a valid political party' the Guardian should accept their money and run the advert (that is certainly the implication of one of the posts lower down).  I would suggest the two things are not connected. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#17)

by jkitleft on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:58:41 PM GMT

Why does freedom of speech with regards to debating the BNP, often end up translated as 'censorship'?

I don't think the fundamental liberty of free speech would be violated if liberal papers refused to run adverts for these parties, or allow columns by a BNP activist. That is the Guardian's right to freedom of opinion. As long as we don't ban the BNP, then the mainstream papers aren't violating free speech if they refuse to promote or associate with any BNP activists what so ever.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#19)

by Floating voter on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:21:51 PM GMT

" Why does freedom of speech with regards to debating the BNP, often end up translated as 'censorship'?"

Because shutting people up because of what they might say or what they've siad in the past is the definition of censorship.

It is a mistake as well. Censor them and they cry "see - those in charge don't want you to hear the truth" and they then get an aura of victimhood. Far, far better to drag them into full public view, let them make their statements and expose them for what they are. If they make defamatory comments then charge them with incitement.

You'll only win the argument if you have a discussion. To do that they need to be allowed to express their views. Let them damn themselves with their own words. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#20)

by doctordunc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:08:18 PM GMT

Yet it is often the same people who say 'let them damn themselves with their own words' who are quick to charge those who oppose military action in various situations with being 'appeasers', etc.

I never claim to be liberal.  I have a straightforward approach to fascists: don't do anything that lends them respectability, credibility or gives anybody the mistaken idea that they might be mainstream or 'valid'.  Expose them, undermine them and demolish any platforms that present themselves to them.

But in fact - from a purely liberal, freedom-of-speech perspective - you can deny them advertising space and not invite them to speak at your meetings.  That's not being illiberal, it's exercising your free, liberal choice.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#21)

by Floating voter on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:36:21 PM GMT

"But in fact - from a purely liberal, freedom-of-speech perspective - you can deny them advertising space and not invite them to speak at your meetings.  That's not being illiberal, it's exercising your free, liberal choice."

True, but having a policy to ensure that their message never gets out is censorship. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#22)

by jkitleft on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:30:20 PM GMT

I think you misunderstood. Let them have their own fascist papers. But no mainstream organisations should give them a voice. Incidentally, I favour repealing Racial and Religious Hatred acts, so that we can hear Griffin condemning David Irving for admitting that some Jews died in the "Holohoax".


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#23)

by Free Radical on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:46:26 PM GMT

I don't like those acts either - I think they are wrong in principle and counterproductive in practice.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#24)

by Floating voter on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:58:44 PM GMT

"I favour repealing Racial and Religious Hatred acts"

Agreed.

They are useless in any case as the whole point of religion is to discriminate - christians have the "saved" and the "damned". The jews are/were the "Chosen people". Muslims call non muslims "kuffir" - religion is ripe with discrimination. "Kill the unbelievers" has been a rallying cry of most religions for several thousand years.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian... (#26)

by Free Radical on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:07:05 PM GMT

I know some fine people who are religious - of various faiths - who don't express such bigotry though.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian ... (#10)

by Floating voter on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:43:24 PM GMT

Simple answer - they ran a BNP ad because

a) The BNP's money is as good as anyone elses

b) The wording did not infringe their advertising guidelines

c) for all its idealogical baggage, The Grauniad is a business 


Re: Why did the Guardian ... (#11)

by e10rifles on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:52:01 PM GMT

Exactly, money.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian ... (#12)

by Floating voter on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:39:08 PM GMT

There's nothing wrong with businesses making money. Without them who would you have to tax?


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian ... (#13)

by e10rifles on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:58:21 PM GMT

Leaving aside questions of the profit motive and surplus labour...lots of businesses will make ethically-motivated decisions on who they trade with (sell to or buy from). In this case, the question is why the Guardian - a paper supposedly opposed to the BNP and everything they stand for - would want to take their money in exchange for an advertisement.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why did the Guardian ... (#16)

by Floating voter on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:51:00 PM GMT

Maybe you should reword your comment as follows:

"...I n this case, the question is why the Guardian - a paper we imagined was opposed to the BNP and everything they stand for  ..."

Did "The Grauniad" ever come out and say they were fundemantally opposed to the BNP? 


[ Parent ]

Re: Guardian GLA recruiting add for the BNP (#18)

by Free Radical on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:46:26 PM GMT

I imagine the Guardian's staff would have justified it on the basis that it was an advert from the GLA rather than the BNP. But obviously the Guardian should not take adverts like this.


Why did the Guardian run a recruiting add for the BNP? | 26 comments (26 topical)