NUJ blasts Newsquest for BNP advertisments - Newsquest says it's in the name of democracy

Posted by Helena Deards on May 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM

The National Union of Journalists has spoken out against Newsquest's decision to accept advertising from the controversial right-wing British National Party. NUJ general secretary, Jeremy Dear blasted the Gannett owned company; "Newsquest should be ashamed of itself for taking money from an organisation that advocates racist policies that would directly discriminate against the communities these websites serve."

Dear was also keen to point out the reported intimidation tactics that the BNP has in the past used against journalists who tried to investigate it, "Many journalists who have investigated the party in the past have since found themselves on far-right hate websites that try to intimidate journalists to stop them from taking up investigations."

In reply to readers who had complained about the advertisements, Newsquest Stourbridge claimed it had accepted the advertising in the name of free speech and democracy. "We cannot selectively discriminate against legally constituted political parties standing in a public election," said the Newsquest response. "Indeed, we would say that, in doing so, we might be playing into the hands of those intolerant and anti-democratic forces that people condemn."

Newsquest did, however, place the advertisements on its websites and not in its print editions - and they have subsequently been removed (which, if earlier than planned, somewhat dampens Newsquest's claims of pro-democratic advertising). What does this demonstrate about the fluid nature of online advertising? It also poses the question of how the reaction would have differed had the ads been present in print.

The debate, therefore continues: did Newsquest make the right decision in allowing the BNP to advertise on some of its sites? The BNP is, undeniably, a legal political party with equal rights to all other parties - but, equally undeniably, holds controversial, offensive and sometimes racist views. Was Newsquest right to overlook these in the name of democracy? Or was its response simply a smoke screen over the real motivation for its decision: advertising revenue?

Moreover, where does the line fall between supporting freedom of speech and democracy, and showing support for the BNP in allowing it to advertise? Newsquest could in fact have done itself a disservice by allowing the advertisements - readers offended by the presence of the British National Party on its publications' homepages may think twice before heading to the site in future, or be discouraged from reading its print editions.

Source: Guardian