AA Gill, Clare Balding and the PCC feather duster
It's quite pleasing to see that the PCC have decided to give AA Gill the most terrifying punishment they can mete out - a tickle on the back of the legs with a feather duster - for calling Clare Balding a 'dyke on a bike'.
As I wrote at the time, the worst bit I found about the whole thing was that Balding had politely complained to Gill's boss, who essentially told her to get on her bike (do you see what I did there? Oh, please yourselves). Had anyone acted like an adult rather than a bunch of silly schoolboys then it could all have been resolved without troubling the scorers. But no, the Sunday Times decided to dig in.
I know that Roy Greenslade slightly disagrees with the judgement of the PCC, saying that there's a 'right to be wrong', but I don't. I think either you sign up to the PCC, and abide by the code, or you don't, and you don't have to. You can't get away with saying "Well, I did say I would abide by this code, but I don't agree with this bit of it, so I'm going to ignore it" because that kind of defeats the whole point of it. The PCC code isn't a buffet where you can pick and choose the bits you like (to complete the analogy, if I were at a buffet, it would be the cheese-and-pineapple and the chicken drumsticks) and ignore the bits you don't (quiche, obviously). That isn't the way these things work, I think.
If you accept that there needs to be regulation of the press - and that's the situation we have at the moment, with self-regulation through the PCC - then I don't think it makes sense to disagree with decisions that apply the code of regulation correctly. You can complain that the code is wrong, but the decision is right; or you can complain that the code is right, but the application of it is wrong in this instance; but I don't think it makes sense to complain that decision isn't right, if it's applying the code correctly. If we want to have an unregulated press or we would like the 'right to be wrong' enshrined in regulation to the extent where all PCC complaints might feasibly be made irrelevant, then that's another matter.
And besides, no-one has been 'denied' the right to be wrong in the slightest. AA Gill was stupid, and wrong, and infantile; but no-one stopped him from having his say. It's just that now his newspaper will have to print the PCC's decision. Will it put others off from being stupid, and wrong, and infantile? Probably not. And you'll excuse me if I don't shed too many tears if it does mean people can't chuck the word 'dyke' around without expecting to be pulled up for it.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
September 17th, 2010 - 16:27
What the Sunday Times thinks of the decision and of the PCC should be shown by where in the paper they choose to print the report.
I doubt it will surprising at any rate.
September 17th, 2010 - 16:28
well said.
i really disagree with roy greenslade on the ‘right to be wrong’ aspect. the word ‘dyke’ is, historically, a hate term, and just like certain words that have been reclaimed to some extent by women, black people, minority ethnic people etc, so it has been partly reclaimed by gay women. so, if my gay family member says dyke, it isn’t offensive. but if someone (a straight person) calls her a dyke, intending to be ‘funny’ or offensive, then it isn’t acceptable, just as we wouldn’t accept racist language being used in a joke or to offend.
we do not yet live in a post homophobic world and the editor of the times, aa gill and greenslade are speaking out of the privileged arses when they say it is ok to use homophobic language.
September 17th, 2010 - 16:49
Cocktail sticks at a buffet should contain a small cube of cheddar cheese (Lancashire is too crumbly), a small cocktail sausage, and a single silverskin pickled onion.
September 17th, 2010 - 17:30
Would that be a sharp or a sweet pickled onion?
The choices you make at a buffet can be alarming if you don’t look closely enough.
September 17th, 2010 - 18:49
Thoughtful piece but clearly just a Trojan Horse for a top 20 buffet snacks poll.