I recently completed a book defending free speech. Emerald Press scheduled it for publication but then decided not to proceed. Here's what it said about the book in Emerald's September 2019 catalogue:
In Defense of Free
Speech: The University as Censor Author James R. Flynn, University of Otago, New Zealand
Synopsis: The good university is one that teaches students the intellectual skills they need to be intelligently critical--of
their own beliefs and of the narratives presented by politicians and the media. Freedom to debate is essential to the development of critical thought, but on university campuses today free speech is restricted for fear of causing offence. In Defense of
Free Speech surveys the underlying factors that circumscribe the ideas tolerated in our institutions of learning. James Flynn critically examines the way universities censor their teaching, how student activism tends to censor the opposing side and how
academics censor themselves, and suggests that few, if any, universities can truly be seen as good. In an age marred by fake news and social and political polarization, In Defense of Free Speech makes an impassioned argument for a return to critical
I was notified of Emerald's decision not to proceed byEmerald's publishing director, in an email on 10th June:
I am contacting you in regard to your manuscript In Defense
of Free Speech: The University as Censor . Emerald believes that its publication, in particular in the United Kingdom, would raise serious concerns. By the nature of its subject matter, the work addresses sensitive topics of race, religion, and gender.
The challenging manner in which you handle these topics as author, particularly at the beginning of the work, whilst no doubt editorially powerful, increase the sensitivity and the risk of reaction and legal challenge. As a result, we have taken external
legal advice on the contents of the manuscript and summarize our concerns below.
There are two main causes of concern for Emerald. Firstly, the work could be seen to incite racial hatred and stir up religious hatred under United
Kingdom law. Clearly you have no intention of promoting racism but intent can be irrelevant. For example, one test is merely whether it is likely that racial hatred could be stirred up as a result of the work. This is a particular difficulty given modern
means of digital media expression. The potential for circulation of the more controversial passages of the manuscript online, without the wider intellectual context of the work as a whole and to a very broad audience--in a manner beyond our
control--represents a material legal risk for Emerald.
Secondly, there are many instances in the manuscript where the actions, conversations and behavior of identifiable individuals at specific named colleges are discussed in
detail and at length in relation to controversial events. Given the sensitivity of the issues involved, there is both the potential for serious harm to Emerald's reputation and the significant possibility of legal action. Substantial changes to the
content and nature of the manuscript would need to be made, or Emerald would need to accept a high level of risk both reputational and legal. The practical costs and difficulty of managing any reputational or legal problems that did arise are of further
concern to Emerald.
Three families of those killed while watching a Batman film in 2012 have written to Warner Bros complaining about the new Joker film and urging the studio to join action against gun violence.
Twelve people died in a cinema showing The Dark Knight
Rises in Colorado. They included Jessica Ghawi, 24, whose mother Sandy Phillips told BBC News she was horrified by the Joker trailers. Speaking to BBC News, Phillips said:
When I first saw the trailers of the movie, I
was absolutely horrified. And then when I dug a little deeper and found out that it had such unnecessary violence in the movie, it just chilled me to my bones. It just makes me angry that a major motion picture company isn't taking responsibility and
doesn't have the concern of the public at all.
A letter from the 3 families asked the studio to lobby for gun reform, help fund survivor funds and gun violence intervention schemes, and end political contributions to candidates who
take money from the National Rifle Association.
Warner Bros responded that the latest film Joker was not an endorsement of real-world violence and said that the studio has a long history of donating to victims of violence, including the 2012
cinema shooting in Aurora, Colorado. It added:
Make no mistake: neither the fictional character Joker, nor the film, is an endorsement of real-world violence of any kind. It is not the intention of the film, the
filmmakers or the studio to hold this character up as a hero.
The Council of Europe is an organisation which aims to uphold human rights across Europe (beyond the EU and reaching as far as Russia). The European Court of Human Rights was established under the auspices of the Council of Europe.
The Council has
recently been considering the issue of sexism being everywhere and has penned a long list of recommendations that are taken straight out of the uncompromising language of extreme feminism. The council explains in a press release:
New Council of Europe action against sexism
In March 2019, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers adopted a new Recommendation on Preventing and Combating Sexism. Not only does this text contain the first ever
internationally agreed definition of sexism, but it also proposes a set of concrete measures to combat this wide-spread phenomenon.
Sexism is present in all areas of life. From catcalls on the street, to women being ignored during
work meetings, to boys being bombarded with aggressive role-models in video games. It is also there when comments are made about politicians on the length of their skirts rather than their latest parliamentary report. When sexist behaviour accumulates,
it can lead to an acceptance of discrimination and even violence.
Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland said that No-one should be discriminated against because of their sex. This is a basic principle which we are still far from
respecting in practice. Through efforts to prevent and combat sexist behaviour, the Council of Europe wants to help ensure a level playing field for women and men, boys and girls.
Sexism is harmful and lies at the root of gender
inequality. It produces feelings of worthlessness, self-censorship, changes in behaviour, and a deterioration in health. Sexism affects women and girls disproportionately. Some groups of women, such as politicians, journalists, women's human rights
defenders, or young women, may be particularly vulnerable to acts of sexism. But it can also affect men and boys, when they don't conform to stereotyped gender roles. Moreover, the impact of sexism can be worse for some women and men due to ethnicity,
age, disability, social origin, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or other factors.
To address these issues and encourage the full implementation of the Recommendation, the Council of Europe has just launched a video
and action page under the hashtag #stopsexism and the slogan See it. Name it. Stop it. The aim is to help the wider public identify acts of sexism and take a stand against them.
The Music Marathon is a music programme on Gold which is broadcast on AM radio in Manchester, London, Derby and Nottingham and nationally on DAB. The licences for these services are
held by Global Radio Limited.
Ofcom received a complaint about offensive language (“yellow Chinkies”) in the music track Melting Pot, a song from 1969 by Blue Mink . No introduction to the track was broadcast, or any
other content discussing it. The track included the following lyrics:
“Take a pinch of white man, Wrap him up in black skin, Add a touch of blue blood, And a little bitty bit of Red Indian boy. Oh,
Curly Latin kinkies, Mixed with yellow Chinkies, If you lump it all together And you got a recipe for a get along scene; Oh what a beautiful dream If it could only come true, you know, you know.
What we need is
a great big melting pot, Big enough to take the world and all it’s got And keep it stirring for a hundred years or more And turn out coffee-coloured people by the score”.
We considered that references in
the lyrics (including “yellow Chinkies”, “Red Indian boy”, “curly Latin kinkies” and “coffee-coloured people”) raised potential issues under Rule 2.3 of the Code:
Rule 2.3: “In applying generally accepted standards
broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context...Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language…discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of…race…) Appropriate
information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence”.
Global Radio said that it understood some of the lyrics in this song had the potential to cause offence but said that the
other lyrics and the context of the time it was written and released mitigated the potential for offence. It said that the offensive language was not intended to be used in a derogatory fashion in the song. It said that the term yellow Chinkies was not used as an insulting term directed at a person of Chinese origin. The Licensee said that it is clear from the lyrics of the song that the message of the song is racial harmony, inclusivity and equality
The Licensee said that following the complaint notification from Ofcom, it had permanently removed the track from Gold's playlist.
Ofcom decision: Resolved
We considered that the
use of the term yellow was a derogatory reference to the skin colour of Chinese people. We therefore considered that the phrase yellow Chinkies had the potential to be highly offensive.
Ofcom's research does not provide
direct evidence for the offensiveness of the terms Red Indian boy , curly Latin kinkies and coffee-coloured people . However, Ofcom considered that Red Indian is generally understood to be a pejorative term in modern speech
and is frequently replaced with Native American . Although the terms curly Latin kinkies and coffee-coloured people are not widely understood to be racial slurs in modern society, unlike the terms Chinky and Red Indian , we considered that they had the potential to cause offence because they could also be considered derogatory references to particular ethnic groups.
In our view, the potential offence caused by these lyrics may have been heightened by the cumulative effect of the repeated use of this language during the verse and chorus
In considering the context of the
broadcast, Ofcom took into account that Melting Pot was released in 1969 by Blue Mink, and reached number three in the UK Singles chart and number 11 in Ireland in 1970. We considered that, although this song was popular at the time, the passage of time
(nearly 40 years) may have not made it sufficiently well-known today to mitigate the potential for offence.
Ofcom also considered Global's argument that any offence was mitigated in this case by the positive intention of the song,
which was a message of racial harmony.
We did not agree that this provided sufficient context to mitigate the potential for offence. The title Melting Pot, which may have provided an indication of the track's overall message, was
not broadcast, nor was the song introduced with any contextual information that would have highlighted its overall message to listeners. There was also no other context provided to justify the broadcast of the offensive language.
For all of the reasons above, Ofcom's Decision is that this potentially offensive material was not justified by the context.
However, we took into account the steps taken by the Licensee following notification of the complaint from Ofcom. We acknowledged that it said it had removed the track permanently from Gold's playlist.
Decision therefore, is that this case is resolved.
Content from previous decades can be broadcast under the Code. However generally accepted standards clearly change significantly over time, and audience expectations of older
content may not be sufficient to justify its broadcast. Where older material contains content, such as language, which has the potential to cause offence to today's audiences, broadcasters should consider carefully how to provide sufficient context to
comply with Rule 2.3 of the Code.
Update: Please leave it alone. I just think it's ridiculous
Sixties band Blue Mink has blasted a radio station's decision to drop their racial harmony promoting song Melting Pot from its playlist.
TV censor Ofcom made a politically correct decision to ban the song after one listener complained
about the lyrics when the song was played on Gold.
African-American lead singer Madeline Bell said:
It took years to suddenly decide in this politically correct time that we live in that it was an offensive and
racist record. We're worrying about the lyrics of a protest song about making coffee-coloured people. The song is 50 years old. Please leave it alone. I just think it's ridiculous.
Bell, ho performs Blue Mink songs as part of
her solo routine, has vowed to continue performing Melting Pot.
An internal project to rewrite how Apple's Siri voice assistant handles sensitive topics such as feminism and the #MeToo movement advised developers to respond in one of three ways: don't engage, deflect and finally inform with neutral information from
The project saw Siri's responses explicitly rewritten to ensure that the service would say it was in favour of equality, but never say the word feminism -- even when asked direct questions about the topic.
The 2018 guidelines are
part of a large tranche of internal documents leaked to the Guardian by a former Siri grader, one of thousands of contracted workers who were employed to check the voice assistant's responses for accuracy until Apple ended the programme last month in
response to privacy concerns raised by the Guardian.
In explaining why the service should deflect questions about feminism, Apple's guidelines explain that Siri should be guarded when dealing with potentially controversial content. When questions
are directed at Siri, they can be deflected ... however, care must be taken here to be neutral.
For example, Apple got tested a little on internet forums about #MeToo. Previously, when users called Siri a slut, the service responded: I'd blush
if I could. Now, a much sterner reply is offered: I won't respond to that .
article from theconversation.com By Paul J. Maginn,
Associate Professor of Urban/Regional Planning, University of Western Australia Aleta Baldwin, Assistant Professor of Kinesiology, Health and Nutrition , The University of Texas at San Antonio Barbara Brents, Professor of Sociology, University of
Nevada, Las Vegas Crystal A. Jackson, Assistant Professor of Sociology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
In 2007, the pornography website Pornhub averaged 1 million visits per day. By 2018 this had increased to 92 million visits per day -- or 33.5 billion views over the course of a year.
As an interdisciplinary group of sexademics,
we're interested in porn's cultural role and impact. A common question we hear is whether this growth in porn consumption is good or bad for society.
Of course, the honest-but-unsatisfying answer is: It depends. But sometimes
studying various aspects of porn consumption can change the way we think about it.
You might have heard, for example, that porn fuels misogynistic attitudes and sexual violence.
If this were the case, you
would think that people who consumed a lot of porn would hold particularly negative views towards women.
So we decided to study a group of men whom we've dubbed porn superfans -- those who are so enthusiastic about porn that
they'll attend the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. We wanted to compare their attitudes about gender equality to those of everyday Americans. Profiling the superfans
Our study was inspired, in part, by the journalists
and politicians who have said that porn consumption is at epidemic levels -- so much so that it constitutes a public health crisis. They write and speak of the perils of porn addiction and objectification, how porn encourages hatred of women and sexual
Would this play out in the results of our study?
The 294 expo attendees we surveyed certainly differed from the general population in a number of ways.
Their average age
was 44 years old. Almost half -- 47.3% -- indicated that they watched porn less than once a day, but more than once a week. Over one-third -- 36.1% - indicated they watch porn every day. In other words, over 80% of the attendees in our sample watched
porn multiple times a week. Only 34.1% of them were married, but they were highly educated: 60.5% had a college degree or higher. A scene from the 2017 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. Paul Maginn, Author
We compared these results to the results from the General Social Survey, a nationally representative survey conducted every couple of years that charts social trends.
This survey only asks whether
people have seen an X-rated movie in the last year, and 37.6% of the men indicated that they had. Just over half of the men in the General Social Survey sample were married, while just 28.7% of them had a college degree or higher. Misogyny unmasked?
But we were most interested in comparing the gender attitudes of each group. So we asked the expo attendees the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with four statements from the General Social Survey:
A working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work.
Most men are better suited emotionally for politics than are most women.
It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.
Because of past discrimination, employers should make special efforts to
hire and promote qualified women.
After parsing the results, we discovered that male porn superfans actually expressed more progressive attitudes towards gender equality on two of the questions. For two others, they indicated just as progressive -- or, said another
way, just as sexist -- attitudes as the general population.
Over 90% of porn superfans -- compared to just over 70% of the GSS sample -- agreed that working mothers can have just as warm and secure relationships with their
children than non-working mothers.
For the statement that men and women should hold traditional gender roles within a family, 80% of porn superfans disagreed. Nationally, 73% percent of respondents disagree with this statement.
A similar proportion -- 80% -- of AVN Expo attendees and General Social Survey respondents disagreed with the statement that men, rather than women, were more emotionally suited for politics.
majority of porn superfans and General Social Survey respondents -- 72.4% and 74.5%, respectively -- agreed that women, due to past discrimination, should get special preference in the workplace, this was the least supported statement we tested. Notably,
however, this level of support is higher than a recent national poll indicating that 65% of Americans support affirmative action for women. Porn crisis or moral panic?
These findings challenge what porn scholars call the negative
effects paradigm, which sees porn as an inherently bad thing that cultivates harmful attitudes.
Our survey isn't the only one that upends this way of thinking. A 2016 study based on General Social Survey data found that male porn
consumers held more egalitarian views on women in position of power, women working outside the home, and abortion than those who didn't view porn.
And while most porn is produced and consumed by men, a growing number of women --
straight and LGBTQ -- are producing porn and consuming different genres of porn, a trend that's largely been ignored.
For now, it's probably best to pump the brakes on the idea that pornography causes negative attitudes toward
women. The evidence just isn't there, and much of today's rhetoric about pornography seems to be more of a moral panic than public health crisis.
A TV ad for the Volkswagen eGolf, seen on 14 June 2019, opened with a shot of a woman and a man in a tent. The woman was asleep and the man switched off the light and closed the tent, which was shown to be fixed to a sheer cliff face. The following
scene depicted two male astronauts floating in a space ship. Text stated When we learn to adapt. The next scene showed a male para-athlete with a prosthetic leg doing the long jump. Text stated we can achieve anything. The final scene showed a woman
sitting on a bench next to a pram. A Volkswagen eGolf passed by quietly. The woman was shown looking up from her book. Text stated The Golf is electric. The 100% electric eGolf. Issue
Three complainants, who believed that the ad
perpetuated harmful gender stereotypes by showing men engaged in adventurous activities in contrast to a woman in a care-giving role, challenged whether it breached the Code.
ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld
The first scene of the ad showed both a man and a woman in a tent, panning out to show that it was fixed to the side of a cliff and therefore implying that they had both climbed up the steep rock face. However, the woman was shown
sleeping, by contrast with the man in the scene. Furthermore, due to the short duration of the shot and its focus on the movement of the man, it was likely that many viewers would not pick up on the fact that it featured a woman, as was the case with the
The ad then showed two male astronauts carrying out tasks in space and a male para-athlete doing the long jump. We considered that viewers would be likely to see the activities depicted as extraordinary and
adventurous -- scientific and career-based in the case of the astronauts and physical in the case of the athlete. That impression was reinforced by the claim When we learn to adapt, we can achieve anything. While we noted that a third astronaut
appeared in the background, the image was very brief and not prominent. We considered that many viewers would not notice the presence of a third person, and if they did, the image was insufficiently clear to distinguish their gender.
The first two scenes both more prominently featured male characters. While the majority of the ad was focussed on a theme of adapting to difficult circumstances and achievement, the final scene showed a woman sitting on a bench and
reading, with a pram by her side. We acknowledged that becoming a parent was a life changing experience that required significant adaptation, but taking care of children was a role that was stereotypically associated with women.
In context, the final scene (the only one that featured the product) gave the impression that the scenario had been used to illustrate the adaptation and resulting characteristic of the car -- so quiet that it did not wake the baby or register with the mother -- rather than as a further representation of achievement, particularly as the setting was relatively mundane compared to the other scenarios.
Taking into account the overall impression of the ad, we considered that viewers were likely to focus on the occupations of the characters featured in the ad and observe a direct contrast between how the male and female characters
were depicted. By juxtaposing images of men in extraordinary environments and carrying out adventurous activities with women who appeared passive or engaged in a stereotypical care-giving role, we considered that the ad directly contrasted stereotypical
male and female roles and characteristics in a manner that gave the impression that they were exclusively associated with one gender.
We concluded that the ad presented gender stereotypes in way that was likely to cause harm and
therefore breached the Code.
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Volkswagen Group UK Ltd to ensure their advertising did not present gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm,
including by directly contrasting male and female roles and characteristics in a way that implied they were uniquely associated with one gender.
Offsite Comment: Stereotypically Stupid: The ASA's Latest Slice Of Lunacy
The San Francisco Board of Education voted this week to cover up a suite of controversial 1930's murals at George Washington High School, reversing an earlier decision to spend $600,000 to destroy them by painting them over.
The murals, The Life of
Washington , were created by the Russian emigre artist Victor Arnautoff as part of a New Deal art initiative and depict episodes from the life of George Washington. A few people have been offended by three of the 13 murals in the cycle for including
depictions of enslaved African-Americans working at Washington's Mount Vernon property, and also violent images of Native Americans.
In Tuesday's vote, the board members voted 4--3 in favor of covering up the murals, frustrating both those who'd
campaigned for outright destruction, and those who'd campaigned for their preservation.
While it is a step in the right direction to take permanent destruction off the table, we will continue to strongly oppose spending $815,000 to permanently
wall off the murals so nobody has the choice to see them or learn from them, said Jon Golinger, the executive director of the Coalition to Protect Public Art, an organization created to advocate for the murals' preservation, to the New York Times .
A TV ad and video on demand (VOD) ad for the soft cheese, Philadelphia:
a. The TV ad, seen on 14 June 2019, featured a woman passing a baby to a man who then held the baby in his arms. Another man appeared carrying a baby in a
car seat. The first man said New dad, too? and the second man nodded. The scene was revealed to be a restaurant with a conveyor belt serving buffet food. The men chatted, saying Wow, look at this lunch, Yeah, hard to choose and This looks good, whilst a
sitting baby and a car seat were seen on the moving conveyor belt, as the men were distracted by selecting and eating their lunch. The first man then noticed his baby had gone around the conveyor belt, said errr and argh!, and moved across the room to
pick the baby up. The second man picked the baby in the car seat off of the conveyor belt, and one of the men said Let's not tell mum.
b. The VOD ad, seen on the ITV Hub, on 18 June 2019, featured the same content.
The complainants, who believed the ad perpetuated a harmful stereotype by suggesting that men were incapable of caring for children and would place them at risk as a result of their incompetence, challenged whether the ads were in
breach of the Code.
Rather than the ads depicting a harmful stereotype, Clearcast thought the ads depicted an example of a momentary lapse in concentration by somewhat overwhelmed and tired new parents which was quickly realized
and rectified. They did not think the ads showed the new fathers being unable to look after the babies properly because of their gender, but instead it was established early on that they were new dads and unused to dealing with young children. They did
not believe the ads were a representation of all fathers and did not believe it suggested that the fathers in the ads, or fathers more generally, were incapable of parenting.
ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld
The CAP and BCAP Code stated Advertisements must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence. The joint CAP and BCAP guidance said that ads may feature people undertaking
gender-stereotypical roles, but they should take care to avoid suggesting that stereotypical roles or characteristics were always uniquely associated with one gender. The guidance provided examples which were likely to be unacceptable, which included An
ad that depicts a man or a woman failing to achieve a task specifically because of their gender e.g. a man's inability to change nappies; a woman's inability to park a car.
We considered the scenario represented two new fathers in
sole charge of their children, who both became distracted when choosing their lunch and subsequently failed to notice when the children were carried away on a conveyor belt. We acknowledged the action was intended to be light-hearted and comical and
there was no sense that the children were in danger. We considered, however, that the men were portrayed as somewhat hapless and inattentive, which resulted in them being unable to care for the children effectively.
that the ad depicted new parents and could therefore be seen as a characterisation of new parents as inexperienced and learning how to adapt to parenthood. We also recognised that, regardless of their gender, it was common for parents to ask their
children (often jokingly) not to tell their other parent about something that had happened. However, in combination with the opening scene in which one of the babies was handed over by the mother to the father, and the final scene in which one of the
fathers said Let's not tell mum, we considered the ad relied on the stereotype that men were unable to care for children as well as women and implied that the fathers had failed to look after the children properly because of their gender.
We also considered that the narrative and humour in the ad derived from the use of the gender stereotype. We did not consider that the use of humour in the ad mitigated the effect of the harmful stereotype; indeed it was central to
it, because the humour derived from the audiences' familiarity with the gender stereotype being portrayed.
We therefore concluded that the ad perpetuated a harmful stereotype, namely that men were ineffective at childcare, and was
in breach of the Code.
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Mondelez Ltd to ensure their advertising did not perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes, including suggesting that stereotypical roles or
characteristics were always uniquely associated with one gender.
An advert for the Nottingham air conditioning company Not Just Cooling has been banned from local buses.
The ad was booked to appear on seven buses in the city but Adverta, which places adverts on buses and trams, blocked it and claimed it
could cause offence.
Lee Davies, who designed the ad, said it was a little bit of harmless fun.
PC Miserablist, Professor Carrie Paechter, director of the Nottingham Centre for Children, Young People and Families, said that the advert was
like something out of the 1950s and called for it to be banned. She whinged:
If I had young children, I wouldn't want them passing that on the way to school, because of the messages it gives them about society. The
subliminal message about society is that it's OK to comment on women's bodies, and comment on women's bodies as if they are the possession of someone else - 'your wife'.
It also gives the subliminal message that it's the man of
the house that's responsible for getting the air conditioning fixed.
I don't want to demonise the company or the company's owner ...BUT... it is a foolish advert and it needs to come down.
Standards Authority decided this advert was not offensive or irresponsible in 2015 - but PC rules have changed since then.
The ASA said it had not received any complaints about the advert in the latest fracas.
Less a story of moral panic and censorship wrapped up as a fight against gender stereotyping -- though it's definitely that too -- and more a prime example of how the BBC will manipulate news reports to fit their own agenda
Campaign is a trade magazine for the advertising industry that has an international reach but is based in the UK.
The latest issue has a photo of Farage on the cover, trailing a profile interview with him inside the magazine. The profile was fairly
sympathetic. Campaign acknowledged that, like the best marketing gurus, Farage knows how to get a simple message across with maximum effect. Clearly, Campaign believes that a successful politician, one whose party used social media and political
messaging to good effect in the EU elections in May, is an apt subject matter for a magazine that deals in the issue of changing minds and making a splash.
But this simple observation did not impress some of the magazines high profile readers. A
group of major media and internet companies got together to give Campaign a good roasting for not giving Farage a harder time. A group called Media for All wrote:
Campaign's cover story offering lessons from
Nigel Farage felt like an insult to the advertising community and what it tries to do every day. The decision to publish a lengthy profile interview without a contribution from the many groups that Farage's politics demonise is also hard to understand,
given Campaign's long support for equality and diversity in our industry.
No-one is disputing Nigel Farage's political successes or his right to voice his opinions on prominent platforms.
playbook he and his political allies have employed to achieve success is about hate and it is simple: identify people who look different, mobilise anger against them and hold them up as the people everyone else should blame.
only lesson our industry should draw from this playbook is not to have any part in it.
Campaign's failure to understand that is why the feature provoked such dismay. Media for All welcomes your response and we would like to be
part of the future debate. Like you, we believe that media is a brilliant industry and should be welcoming to all.
The media industry is making many positive steps towards being a more representative and diverse place. But this
cover story was a step in the wrong direction.
Media for All
Bhavit Chandrani, sponsorship controller, ITV Akama Ediomi Davies, director of global solutions,
Xaxis; co-founder, We Are Stripes Sarah Jenkins, chief marketing officer, Grey London Desiree Lopez, chief executive, Flamingo Group Priya Matadeen, general manager commercial, Dazed Media Dora Michail, managing director for commercial
growth, Telegraph Media Group Liam Mullins, managing partner, the7stars Dino Myers-Lamptey, former managing director, Mullenlowe Mediahub Dara Nasr, managing director, Twitter Naren Patel, chief executive, Primesight Rak Patel, head
of sales, Spotify Jay Rajdev, EMEA vice-president of brand solutions, Videology Nishma Robb, marketing director, Google Mimi Turner, brand strategist, Mimi Turner Associates
Offsite Comment: Silicon
Valley thinks journalists shouldn't talk to Nigel Farage