Radical views
"Some opinions are simply wrong and should not be given airtime".
That's what one of our listeners said when we asked on Friday if the 大象传媒 should allow people with minority, radical and sometimes offensive views on air. The 大象传媒's head of TV news Peter Horrocks was with us to defend his calls (which you can read in full here) for the 大象传媒 to take more risks with guests and represent as many different opinions as possible. Interviews with the Taliban and the BNP were examples he gave of things we should hear on air.
My personal view is that he is right, as long as presenters are very well briefed and in a position to conduct a robust interview. There is no excuse for giving such people an easy ride. But ban them altogether? Surely the answer is to challenge them and, in the case of a phone-in programme like ours, give the public the opportunity to challenge them too.
One listener said giving people like the Taliban a platform might help them recruit extremists. But in a multimedia world where such views are widely available in an unchallenged form, isn't it better to test those views on the 大象传媒 rather than pretending they are not there?
But I do have sympathy with another listener who complained that if we have Islamic extremists on air then we give the impression that minority groups are more radical than they actually are. Of course it's not all about race, which brings me back to the first listener who thinks some opinions are simply wrong. She was actually talking about interviewing paedophiles. Would I put a paedophile on my programme? Well we have heard from reformed paedophiles before. But someone seeking to justify their behaviour? Perhaps not, but I'm nervous about ruling anything or anybody out.
Comments
The only opinion that should be banned is that of the original viewer.
If you can't successfully defeat, in the minds of the listener/viewer, even if not in the proponent's mind, their supposed objectionable opinion with reasoned argument and robust questioning, then they have an entirely reasonable basis for their beliefs.
Giving air time to legal UK political parties, even if their views are not shared by the majority of people, is different from broadcasting propaganda from people who we are at war with. The 大象传媒 must learn that not everything can be treated in the same way. I can just imagine the 大象传媒 taking this position in the second world war. 鈥楬ere are the 鈥渃laims鈥 of Mr Churchill, followed by the views of Lord Haw Haw鈥.
I can understand why the comment "Some opinions are simply wrong and should not be given airtime" might have been said. The problem is that, while there are probably many cases that the vast majority of people would agree that that rule is correct, there are just as many cases where there would be disagreement over whether someone had a right to say something different, even if it was radical.
There would be large grey areas. Who decides these things? Someone's opinion on whether someone else's opinion is too radical to be heard? Do you see the problem? By all means, deliberately inflammatory opinions/comments should try to be avoided (but again, are these a matter of opinion!?) but to "gag" different opinions will only have the effect of marginalising and radicalising more people who will take other, more extreme ways of making their opinions heard.
大象传媒 presenters too often make comments that are personal opinions or are one sided and can sway the listener/viewer into thinking it must be ok 鈥淚 heard it on the 大象传媒鈥
Its ok to interview anyone and give them air time, its another thing to add comments or make remarks that approves of or disapproves of what鈥檚 been discussed, especially after the interviewee has gone or has no more opportunity to rebuff the comments
Sadly this happens all too often on the 大象传媒.
are one sided and can sway the listener/viewer into thinking it must be ok 鈥淚 heard it on the 大象传媒鈥
Its ok to interview anyone and give them air time, its another thing to add comments or make remarks that approves of or disapproves of what鈥檚 been discussed, especially after the interviewee has gone or has no more opportunity to rebuff the comments
Sadly this happens all too often on the 大象传媒.
大象传媒 proves its bias by the way it conducts interviews with those who take controversial positions. By giving those whose views it agrees with nothing but softball questions and passively accepting whatever answers it gets, it provides them with a media platform to make a speech delivering their propaganda message over its powerful voice. By contrast, when it interviews those it disagrees with, it challenges them on virtually every statement they make, sometimes almost every single word they say. You can often hear 大象传媒's confrontational manner just in the tone of the interviewer's voice. This is easy to overlook because these contrasting types of interviews are rarely juxtaposed.
My understanding of the freedom of speech and "Nation shall speak free unto nation" is that it is to allow the opressed to stand up to the opressor.
So, yes, have "extreme" views on programmes, but they should be involved in an objective dialogue and asked to justify their views. If their justification doesn't hold any weight this should be identified to them and the viewer.
If you want an example, objectively interview a paedophile who is scared of being lynched and you'll see a victim.
Did I miss the interview with the BNP? I would have thought there would be many people attacking the 大象传媒 for allowing them to air their views, but it seems I missed that as well.
It strikes me that the question "Who should be permitted to have their views given publicity on the 大象传媒" is (while admittedly not an easy one) much easier than the real question you have to answer, which is "Within the constraints of finite airtime, what weight should be given to all the different views out there?"
That's why, for example, there is concern that having extremists on air gives the wrong impression about minorities - not because extremists are allowed to speak, but because non-extremists get proportionately less time.
Apart from the stopwatch-per-seats-contested approach mentioned by Peter Horrocks, it's hard to see how to answer that one.
It is very important to air so called 'minority views' becuase just becuase somthing is not the most popular view doesn't make any less of a valid argument.
In the same way just because the majority believe in somthing doesn't make them right either. Take nazi Germany? Surely the perfect example of how democracy and the majority view isn't always the best thing. Of course this is still like with minority extremists still a valid point of view.
But Paedophiles? I think you are a little confused. Being a paedophile isn't a point of view, its a sexuality. There is no such thing as a 'reformed' paedophile any more than there is such a thing as a reformed homosexual or heterosexual. You are what you are. All a Paedophile can do is repress their feelings but those feelings will always be with them.
Which is why paedophilia is a conundrum, in a way you can't blame them they were born the way they are and you can never treat them. But of course what they do is wrong and hurts children who we must protect. But there will never really be a effective trategy to combat it.
So giving them a voice? I can't see how they have a 'view' to give they just have a sexuality society cannot and will not accept.
A pertinent question is perhaps
"Are these comments moderated?"
It could be advisable to publish the right, the wrong or the objectionable depending on the purpose.
There should be no debate, at all, about purpose when we are at war.The safety of our fighting men is the first and only priority.Any help or comfort to the enemy should wait until the end of the war.
Everyone has a right to express their opinion as long as they do not condone violence. I myself congradulate the 大象传媒 on this. The US Media only allows Republicans and Democrats and close out Libertarians, Greens, even Monarchists. For that reason, I give them air time in my blog.
I am all for having a plurality of debate. When I was in college the National Union of Students had a 'No platform for racists' policy. However, if we don't learn how to defeat the arguments of these people through debate that skill is soon lost. And we are a step closer to people 'debating' using their fists.
By all means get representatives of the BNP on the 大象传媒, but they must be given a rigorous examination of their views and not allowed to simply present themselves as 'english nationalists'. Indeed, if you want a better understanding of some of the policies they don't shout about quite so loudly, look on their website.
I'm afraid I didn't see the Taliban piece, so I'm not really clear of the issue here. Surely journalists such as Jon Snow have been interviewing both warring factions in a conflict for a long time. He did so in Central America when the US was cynically arming both sides. Although whether he was filming interviews with them for broadcast is not something I can recall off the top of my head.
most people would rather nuke people who they dont understand rather than try to understand where they are coming from.
and even when they do understand, its still not enough to disarm their bomb.
Islamic Fundementalism is no diff from Jewish or Christian Funmdentalism. They all think they are the best and the others are heathens. However, Islamic people are considered too nuts to tolerate. This double standard attitude is dangerous for your own intellect-not theirs. You just prove their point.
When white people in europe can say they are jewish and kick mid east people out of their land-that is radical. When they can't even fathom the possibility that Palestinians could have been jewish-that is pervertly absurd.
The 大象传媒 is not a passive reflector of public debates but has always seen itslef as a player in the business of shaping attitudes and behaviour ever bit as much as much as other protagonists. One difference however, is that others are transparent in intention and often subject to some sort form of democratic accountabilty. The 大象传媒 is wonderfully free of such fetters.
All expressions of opinion on air are deftly policed by means of planned tactical preparation and tight stage management to give the illusion of a studious 'impartiality' needed for the effective delivery of a 'sociolitical' agenda.
Unless 'Opinion' can at times be made public in the context of an externally agreed protocol where the 大象传媒 serve as technical facilitators -it's all pretty much for the birds.
In seems that Peter,et al,are not about to let calls for domestic partisanship lock them out of the global - and in particular,Islamic, cyberbosom. There are bigger fish to fry.
Jack Maclean
The biggest fear of all is the fear of the unknown. We only know that there are some extremist groups out there who are creatively looking for ways to blast our cities. We dont know why they are like that or what made them to do such horrid things . A little light into them might make us to think about them rather than fear.
I do not believe that terrorism is by any means an answer for anything. I would like to see how they justify their deeds before the audience.
There is a 'democratic deficit'in England, with everything loaded in favour of 'established' opinions, parties and organisations. I'd like to see and hear more "minority, radical and sometimes offensive views" on the 大象传媒. By all means let presenters be as equally robust and challenging with them as they are with the usual 'established' persons.Message number 5 is spot on.
Thou shalt not question the war?
Notwithstanding that "Our Brave Fighting Men" presumably went into the army knowing what soldiers do, surely it is our duty to them to question whether they should be there, for their and our safety.
I don't know why we have not been able to hear these so-called minority views in the past. As many have said, why not allow their views to be heard and tested? Where is the harm? What worries me is Peter Horrocks' amazing confession that the 大象传媒 previously restricted appearances by people who were against the EU and were against immigration. I didn't know this kind of censorship was happening and am amazed that these people have this kind of power. I think this proves that airtime quotas will need to be brought in. This system works well at election time and should happen all the time. This system may curtail airtime but it will not censor views that have a some support, even minority support. What we can no longer do is trust the 大象传媒 do make these judgments as Peter Horrocks has clearly shown that this does not work.
My biggest objection to the 大象传媒 is your disproportionate large volume of islamic voices expressing views that Islam in contemporary form is a very peaceful religion that doesn't need any change or reform. These people by giving them your airways reinforce a view that everyone is responsible for terrorism, intolerance against non-Muslims, poor integration and anti-Semitism but not Islam and Muslims. This strengthens unjustified feeling among Muslims that they are victims and they should fight back. It effectively silences any self-criticism and self-examination among Muslims such needed in today situation. If we want to achieve a true dialog, mutual understanding and good cooperation, Muslims have to acknowledge their mistakes as well and stop blaming everyone else.
Therefore the 大象传媒 should give a space to Muslims that urge reform in Islam and change in islamic societies. You relied heavily on the so called 'moderates' like members from the Muslim Council of Britain or Islamic Human Rights or even Hizb ut-Tahrir whose agendas and activities are questionable if not radical. And then comes your interviews with the Talebans or individuals like Abu Izzadeen without any opposite voices that would challenge their sick agenda. If some progress is to be made there should be a real dialog and real criticism. Media, like the 大象传媒, have a very important role here. Instead of relying only on Muslim Council of Britain and similar so called 'moderates' you should deepen the debate and engage a wide spectrum of differing voices. There should be more people from organizations like or and individuals like Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hisri Ali or . Only then can we move from this endless mantra 'It is all Israel's and Americas' fault' to more valuable conclusions.
I find it ludicrous that you put the BNP and the Taliban in the same context, the Taliban have killed 100,000's of people, the BNP 0, the Taliban removed woman's right the BNP have not.
I personally do not support any racist party or un-democratic party, however, I find the 大象传媒 fixation with extremists to be wrong, I also feel that the 大象传媒 has a definite slant towards reporting favourably on Middle East dictatorships whilst ignoring their human rights records records.
When the great British Public in it's many component parts complains about the biased reporting from the 大象传媒 you bring in a 'independent expert' to refute this, however it seems that all these 'experts' are either Guardian columnists or at the very least share your left-wing view.
So if the 大象传媒 wants to take a radical view on the world why not try being really radical and be more British!.
One of 大象传媒's more laughable examples of "interview bias" was a recent program it aired about "Islamic loans" and "Islamic banking." the Koran does not permit the charging of interest on loans so these banks use the pretense of calling it by another name such as a charitable contribution or shared equity. Try not paying back such a loan and you'll find charity comes knocking at your door to repossess your property, it will be charity in reverse. The bias stemmed from this nonsense going virtually unchallenged despite its obvious illogic. What a joke you are 大象传媒. Sometimes its hard to see how even you could take what you air seriously.
Simple rule of thumb. Where an opinion merely offends, the holder is entitled to express it. Where the opinion is likely to incite, then no.
This is a comparatively easy call in secular cultures such as ours. It鈥檚 a lot harder when the person who expresses the contentious opinion is a tribal or religious leader whose words carry great weight with many people and whose authority exists outside of any legal framework.
So yes, you should allow the paedophile to express his opinion. As long as it鈥檚 challenged and opposing views are expressed too.