Police can't just ignore the EDL. Neither can we
A couple of weeks ago, I had meetings with Mayor Sir Peter Soulsby and Chief Superintendent Rob Nixon, of Leicestershire police, about the planned march by the English Defence League – which is taking place today in the city centre.
I explained to both of them what I thought the Mercury's role should be in reporting on this event and how we intended to approach our coverage. They told me about the issues facing them and their initial ideas about how this event might be managed.
-
These sort of meetings on matters of major public importance are a routine part of the relationship between the media and the authorities and are very useful in allowing each side to understand one another's thinking. I cannot go into great detail about these meetings because both conversations were off-the-record.
However, I wanted to use this week's Insider to at least tell you what I said and explain the reasons for our editorial decision-making over this hugely controversial event.
I am aware that there is a school of thought which says that media attention plays into the hands of a group like the EDL because publicity is exactly what it desires and that the media should, therefore, provide only the most minimal coverage.
Those who hold this view would argue that last time the EDL came to Leicester there was prolonged public disorder, disruption to many businesses and a huge cost in terms of policing the protest.
Therefore, we should downplay our coverage for the greater good of the city, because starving the EDL of the oxygen of publicity would make them less likely to return in the future.
I would hasten to add that neither the mayor nor Chief Supt Nixon made this argument and put no pressure on us in how we reported this event.
However, I do know that the view that we should veto our reporting in this way is held in some quarters.
You will have noticed from the extent and prominence we have given to this story over the past fortnight that we do not agree.
If there was ever a justifiable case for downplaying a major event like this – and I think that doing so directly contradicts the whole point of the media – then it has surely disappeared in the digital age.
The traditional media – newspapers and broadcasters – cannot simply turn off the tap of information in the way that they might once have been able to do so.
The exponential growth and influence of the internet and social networking sites have put paid to that.
Indeed, the EDL is something of a digital phenomenon. Its discussions and the organisation of its protests appear to largely take place on the web.
Its members put up videos on YouTube and there are numerous forums where they agree with one another about their views and argue with opponents.
This storm of digital technology also means that lots of information is circulating locally, particularly among young people.
The instant communication of text messaging and e-mails, in particular, means that false rumours can do the rounds and become established facts in a very short time.
In this environment, I think that rather than attempting to neuter our coverage, we in fact have a responsibility to do the opposite and make sure that we provide the public with reliable and accurate information on which they can trust.
We should challenge information we believe to be misleading – as we have done over some of the EDL's claims – and we should provide a forum for debate within our pages, more of which later.
This is more or less what I said to the mayor and to Chief Supt Nixon.
I also added that we would be very happy to help them put out any messages that they wanted to the public, such as advising local hotheads to stay away from town.
In truth, I doubt very much whether the EDL gives a fig about our coverage in any case. I suspect that many of its members would regard this newspaper as part of a shadowy "liberal establishment".
They much prefer their own discussion forums where they can engage with lots of other like-minded individuals.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote in this column that the EDL's specific reason for returning to Leicester – its belief that a local court case showed that the justice system treats Muslim defendants less harshly than English ones – was a complete misunderstanding of what had taken place and that the judgement showed nothing of the sort.
No EDL supporters wrote to me to disagree. However, my article was reproduced in its entirety on one website where the various points I had made were criticised.
Nothing wrong with that, of course, it is a free country. But the interesting point is that nobody of an EDL persuasion was interested in taking me on in the newspaper, which tends to confirm my suspicion that the place they prefer is the internet.
The other issue with which we have had to deal over the past couple of weeks is the correspondence we have received on this matter.
This is a good thing, of course, because we welcome people's views and we have done our best to publish as many of them as possible in our Mailbox pages.
However, people have very strong opinions about the EDL and tend to call them lots of names which are not legally safe.
The law of defamation says that you have to be able to justify allegations you make against people.
Our legal advice is that some of the words popularly used in connection with the EDL – racists, Nazis and fascists – are inadvisable.
The EDL says that it is none of these things and that it merely opposes Islamic extremism.
You might want to argue that some of the things its members say at demonstrations are racist, or that its actions stir up racial hatred, but a blanket label on the entire organisation would be difficult to justify.
This obviously applies even more so to the word "Nazi" which has such appalling historical associations.
However, our lawyers say the word "extremist" is okay, as long as it is clearly someone's opinion.
A lot of what I have just said is not just about the law of defamation but about a sense of fair play.
And I think this is ultimately what readers expect of us amidst the sound and fury over this sort of demonstration.
The Leicester Mercury should be a beacon of accurate and reliable information, and a forum for views which can be strong, but which do not descend into unjustifiable abuse.
That is the approach we have tried to take with regards to the EDL over the past couple of weeks. To paraphrase Winston Churchill – let them do their worst, we will do our best.
9 Comments
by SergeForward
Tuesday, February 07 2012, 10:26PM
“@DonHenson: Yes, it's interesting to see the rank mass... sorry... massed ranks of the EDL's Leicester Divs spamming the Leicester Mercury site. CraigLeic9 and Loughb, you're rumbled.
@lissabeth: I spent some years in Whitechapel and Stepney and knew a couple of Cable Street veterans, so hats off to your granddad! I see no discrepancy there either. On 4th October 1936, the anti-fascists organisations of the time called for an official rally on the other side in London in Hyde Park to take place at the same time the fascists were supposed to march through the predominantly Jewish areas of Aldgate, Whitechapel and Stepney. However, people like your grandfather ignored that and spontaneously headed for Aldgate and Cable Street instead to physically prevent the blackshirts from setting foot in the East End. A significant consequence of this was that fascism was discredited in the eyes of anyone with half a brain and the movement declined, only resurfacing again after the war.
Now if it was right for people to do what they could to prevent the British Union of Fascists from gaining a foothold then, why is it seen as wrong to act against the EDL now? Does this mean that many of the current generation have lost their values and sense of right and wrong. Maybe we could all learn a lot from our grandparents' generation.”
by Loughb
Tuesday, February 07 2012, 8:20PM
“The two tear system strikes again
A TEENAGER who smashed a broken bottle into a man's head during a street attack by up to 30 youths has walked free from court.
The victim had told the gang he "didn't want any trouble" before he was punched to the ground then repeatedly kicked in the head and face.
Shani Rahman then broke a bottle against a wall and thrust the sharp remains into the victim's head.
Mr Recorder Miller sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment, suspended for two years, with supervision and programme requirements.
The judge said Rahman could be given a chance to keep his freedom, but warned: "Anyone who uses a glass bottle and smashes it against someone's head as you did would normally expect to face immediate imprisonment.
"It is a very serious matter indeed."
Vic Laffey, defending, said Rahman comes from a respectable family and is "keen to get himself on the right track".
http://tinyurl.com/6nl9lgc”
by CraigLeics9
Tuesday, February 07 2012, 4:05PM
“@ Loughb
maybe your right”
by Loughb
Tuesday, February 07 2012, 3:18PM
“@CraigLeics9
What we need here is a demo outside the Mercury.”
by CraigLeics9
Tuesday, February 07 2012, 2:18AM
“"Nothing wrong with that, of course, it is a free country. But the interesting point is that nobody of an EDL persuasion was interested in taking me on in the newspaper, which tends to confirm my suspicion that the place they prefer is the internet."
Thats an interesting claim to make. i apologise if im missing your name on here(internets not really my thing) but who is the writer of this article? The reason i ask and the say its interesting, is because the Leicester mercury was furnished with contact details from myself as the EDL event organiser along with a letter we asked to be printed. This letter, strangely, wasnt deemed important enough for the Leicester Mercury to show to its readers however a couple of paragraphs were used on one page and then the whole thing was slated on another in the same days paper!
"A couple of weeks ago, I wrote in this column that the EDL's specific reason for returning to Leicester – its belief that a local court case showed that the justice system treats Muslim defendants less harshly than English ones – was a complete misunderstanding of what had taken place and that the judgement showed nothing of the sort."
Misunderstanding? i could suggest the same about your claim tbh but that would be petty. We did not misunderstand anything. We are well aware that the judge claimed Rhea Page's partner may have used excessive force, however, its our belief that if that was the case then charges would have been brought against him. Then it would have been a matter for a jury to decide. id Also point you in the direction of the words used by Lord Parker CJ in 1963
".... where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor ....".
Everyone who has seen that video including any jury members, would i hope, draw the same conclusion, that it was a savage attack. The lack of sound im sure you will use as a fall back and also to back up the ridiculous sentences.But anyone with any shred of decency can see that if a woman is so badly attacked on cctv she has no need to lie! she also had a witness!
Is the Leicester Mercury now challenging the statements of the victim on behalf of the attackers?
"That is the approach we have tried to take with regards to the EDL over the past couple of weeks. To paraphrase Winston Churchill – let them do their worst, we will do our best."
to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill and to answer to your article as a whole, and the way in which the press and powers that be wish to deal with the EDL
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
you may have more resources at your fingertips and your lies may get around quicker than our truths but we have an important point to raise and to quote Sir Winston Churchill again
"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time-a tremendous whack."”
by DonHenson
Saturday, February 04 2012, 5:45PM
“@redcat
Apparently not. All they are doing is addressing those they disagree with by pumping up the negative marks. Pathetic”
by redcat
Saturday, February 04 2012, 11:47AM
“Surely then with all the publicity the EDL really have no need to actually come here in person en masse to make their points? They cannot argue that there is anyone in Leicester who doesn't know what their viewpoint is in general and specifically on the court case that attracted their attention back to Leicester.
It rather makes you suspect that their intention in coming is NOT just to tell us what they are about.
Incidentally, can the Leicester Mercury please ask the EDL why, if they are so against Islamic Extremism (as is pretty much everyone except the Islamic extremist themselves) the EDL want to remove multiple thousands from the policing budget by holding marches and demonstrations?
Knowing, as they must, that last time their presence cost the local police so much, and this march now will do the same do they not think that that is making life easier for Islamic extremists? If the police have less money then that means less chance to investigate and prevent the exact thing the EDL says they are against. Do they have an answer for that?”
by lissabeth
Saturday, February 04 2012, 9:27AM
“I have no interest in EDL or UAF.Silly side comment,my grand dad went and fought in the streets of Whitechapel,before the War,against Moselys Blackshirts and also again in Leicester.Where I find a discrepancy in the reporting is that the EDL have agreed to the route advised{shall see} but the UAF have decided on their own agenda with no comment.”
by DonHenson
Saturday, February 04 2012, 8:39AM
“Interesting that the EDL won't challenge the newspaper directly. But then of course it's easier to find yourself in court arguing a case you cannot win.”