Zack Polanski once again shows his true colours (no, not green). Alex Massie in the Times, defending the press and free speech from the likes of the Green leader:
Anyone wishing to catch the last of the summer vibes could do very much worse than keep an eye on Zack Polanski. Earlier this week the Green Party leader objected that “once again, parts of our media are failing at the most basic part of their job — reporting the truth”. In this instance, the failure was to link wildfires in Britain with climate change at every opportunity.
Polanski gave up on the environment as soon as he became leader of the Greens, in favour of Gaza lies to pull in the Muslim vote (with deputy leader Mothin Ali), and trans advocacy. So this takes some kind of chutzpah.
Last Saturday, on the other hand, Polanski was busy condemning Andy Burnham’s “spineless response” to the Jason Arday affair on the grounds that the prime minister fails to appreciate this is an opportunity “to tackle the press”. Notwithstanding the tragedy of the Arday story — for such it is, despite it also being a saga seemingly designed for an acutely acidic satire — the accusation here is that the press spent too much time reporting the truth without ever once pausing to consider the possible consequences of doing so.
On Sunday Polanski was at it again. Responding to an opinion piece in the Daily Mail in which the author suggested a long, hot, dry summer was actually very pleasant in very many ways, Polanski reiterated that: “It’s time we sorted out the press.” The author of that op-ed might indeed be insouciant in the face of changing weather patterns but — bear with me here — it’s not obviously something which needs “sorting out”. Being wrong on the internet or even in the pages of the Daily Mail is not, or not yet, a crime…..
Unfortunately, a well-behaved media never held anyone or anything to account. You may say that we would say that, wouldn’t we, and yes, we would, but not just because this is a self-serving, even self-flattering, suggestion but also, importantly, because it is true. For better or worse, bad or even objectionable journalism is the price paid for the good stuff. There is almost no way of controlling the former that does not also impinge upon the latter….
A liberal democracy stands for liberalism and an open society or it ceases to merit its own label. We should strive to be kind, but not at the expense of the truth or legitimate inquiry. So while there is indeed often something sulphurous about the spectacle of Fleet Street in full cry, the only thing worse than an unchained press is a muzzled one. Some of the commentary on Arday (as distinct from the reporting) was unpleasantly vindictive and gleeful and even the press’s supporters might concede that, whatever the fourth estate’s effect on the enemy, it can terrify its friends too. We can recognise that without giving succour to those who will use any issue, any occasion and any excuse to hobble a free press.
Of course speech can have consequences. We need only look to Batley for evidence of that. It is now five years since a teacher there was forced into hiding for the “crime” of using a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad during a lesson exploring issues of speech and blasphemy and religious disputation. The mob got its way as, shamefully, the school suspended the teacher and offered an “unequivocal” apology for something that merited no apology at all. The council, naturally, backed the school and so did the local MP. If you want to go in search of a “culture war” you can find it in Yorkshire and I do not think identifying the villains is difficult.
Blown hither and thither by these gales and menaced by left and right alike, the centre struggles to be heard. But there is nothing small or weak about a centrism which insists upon the old liberal virtues. Liberty is constrained enough and has no need of additional chains or safety rails. This is not an equivocating or modest position; in the current atmosphere it feels almost radical.
Leave a Reply