LS Editorial on attempted censure

On Friday April 30, the freedom of this paper came under threat.

The freedom of speech, from ideology, from the establishment, and from mainstream media, has upheld Leeds Student throughout its 40-year history. It is a freedom that has allowed this paper to print interviews, articles and opinions that may not be liked, are sometimes disclaimed, and frequently bring fierce debate.

Jak Codd, Communications and Internal Officer, used his perceived power as a senior  member of the student executive to remove all issues of Leeds Student  from the stands  in the  Leeds University Union. Codd believed an interview with Palestinian journalist Sameh Habeeb to be anti-Semitic.  This belief surrounds a comment Habeeb made about Israeli influence on the media.

In the article, interviewer Laura MacKenzie asked Habeeb: “Do you believe mainstream news organisations to have a hidden agenda?”

He replied: “They are certainly pro-Israeli. I think you have to ask yourself who controls the media.”

Mr Habeeb’s answer is open to several interpretations: “Media control” could mean ownership, editorial stance or whether or not journalists have – or are allowed – access to events they wish to report.

The intention was to report Habeeb’s views, not comment upon them. The interview was presented in question-and-answer format. No editorial line was taken or displayed.  The comment was reported verbatim. Like the scores of verbatim quotes that Leeds Student prints each issue, it was presented as just that – without editorial colour or spin, for readers to interpret for themselves. We appreciate that the understanding was not universally consistent.

Since publication, it has become apparent that the phrase “controls the media” can be very sensitive. Some perceive it to be implicitly anti-Semitic, carrying wider, more potentially offensive connotations than may be apparent at first sight or to an uninformed reader. Others saw no such nuances.   

This paper believes the attempted censure of Leeds Student was not warranted. Newspapers should provoke discussion. For student papers, in which editorial decisions are not usually guided by the influence of proprietors, such discussion, debate and opinion is even more important.

Every student, lecturer and member of this University has a right to read this paper and take a view. People do not have to like the content. If they don’t like it, they can write to us, they can write a comment piece, they can talk to us in person or over email or phone. We at Leeds Student write for readers, not for ourselves. We welcome your views.

We stand by the principle that if speech is to be free, then we must all accept that we will encounter material which offends us. Yes, exceptions exist, such as defamation and incitement. They are enshrined in law. ‘Due process’ – rather than individual action – is an essential aspect of the checks and balances which safeguard so many of our liberties. We respect due process; we do not uphold individual, unilateral action, especially when procedures are in place which allow a ‘due process’ to be pursued.

There are differences – however subtle – between being pro or anti-semitic, pro- or anti-Zionist, pro- or anti-Israeli or, indeed, being for or against the Israeli government and its individual elected representatives. Confusing these may be politically convenient or the result of naïveté. Neither is less valid than the other. In times of tension, it is easy to forget that a true patriot in a representative democracy actively challenges elected representatives – because such actions help protect the freedoms for which such a democratic nation should stand. Challenging a government, any government, over its policies and actions is not the same as denying a nation’s existence, or right to exist, or the racial, ethnic, philosophical or political dimensions of its people, its creation or its evolution.

All journalism and all history are only ever as good as the sources that are available. If access to one side of an argument or to witnesses of each side of a conflict is not possible – for whatever reason – then the account is unlikely to be balanced. Understanding what sources are or are not available is crucial to the assessment of evidence in any argument.

Codd’s  attempted, but unsuccessful,  censorship of this paper was a bad day for student journalism and for the University as a whole. The students who wrote to us, who joined Facebook groups and who signed petitions, showed their wish for this paper to be protected from such influence.

No news outlet is perfect. However, like others, we strive to uphold the freedom of the media and the freedom of expression.  We seek to uncover truths and to promote the free exchange of ideas and opinion.

On Monday May 3, an editorial meeting decided that this paper would not be censored. We subsequently gave out issues across the University campus. We believed and we still believe that you, the reader, have the right to read, to even be offended. We hope you do too.

Related posts:

1. Supermarket Sweep Morrisons Israeli food produce collected by Palestinian Solidarity Group Dozens of students from Leeds University’s Palestinian Solidarity Group (PSG) stormed Morrisons in Leeds last Friday,...
2. Israel talk fuels controversy Students attempt to force their way into controversial talk on campus Students attempted to force entry into a controversial talk on campus called ‘Why you...
3. Property Shop ‘plot’ protest Demonstation follows ‘Leeds Student’ exposeAngry student protesters forced The Student Property Shop to remain closed for business for over two hours, last Saturday. The protest...
4. Freshers start uni penniless Thousands of students are still without loan payments. Almost a month into the new university year, up to 175,000 students across the country are still...
5. Referendum motions dropped Two motions were withdrawn from this semester’s referendum This semester’s referendum motion proposals came under scrutiny at Tuesday’s biannual meeting at Leeds University Union (LUU)....