A Study in Hypocrisy, Part II

[steepholm]

I see that the Telegraph has sacked Kelvin Mackenzie after just one column, because his appointment was offensive to those readers from Liverpool who remember his part in Hillsborough (i.e. all of them). Frightened of the financial consequences of a boycott, the paper raised the white flag almost before the pixels on Mackenzie's first column were dry. (The sad old hack hadn't even mentioned football or Liverpool.)

Surely this can't be the same Telegraph that waxed so eloquent on the sacred right to offend a few weeks ago, when it welcomed Julie Burchill's trans-bashing article to its website to the accompaniment of copious guff about St Crispin's Day, sceptred isles and fighting them on the beaches? At the time Toby Young was luminous in his indignation, castigating the Observer for its pusillanimity in pulling the article:

Why does he think the paper "got it wrong" on this occasion? Because the article caused "offence"? It cannot be said often enough that freedom of speech, if it means anything, must include the freedom to say things that some people find offensive.

Apparently this defence now requires a codicil. The freedom to offend extends only to those people who are too vulnerable to fight back.

Stay classy, Telegraph.

Comments

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

It had already occurred to me that the best way to fight the Mail's vileness is to boycott the companies that advertise in the Mail and write to them explaining why you are doing so.

Direct confrontation plays straight into the Mail's hands. They want hits because hits help them sell adverts and more controversy means more hits. But if you noted who was advertising in the Mail (especially online where that's their only income), and boycotted their products or services, encouraging friends and supporters to do likewise, it might help to get your point across.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

This is very sensible, but to some extent it's a numbers game - and this applies to all the papers. About 1.5M people live on Merseyside, compared to a few thousand trans people and their allies. They can afford to offend us, because the money they generate through clickbait columns is greater than the money they'd lose through a boycott. In the case of the Mail, they clearly count on the fact that a large number of their readers have some kind of fetishistic obsession with the subject too (unless it's just Paul Dacre?).

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

Have you seen this?
http://boingboing.net/2013/04/12/dc-introduces-first-openly-tra.html

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I'd heard rumours from afar, though I don't know the comics world well enough to gauge how significant it is.

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

Nor me, I'm afraid.