Whether it's Esther McVey, Diane Abbott, Laura Kuenssberg, or Cathy Newman, abusing people is wrong
A few days ago I posted a clip here of an interview of Canadian academic Jordan Peterson by Cathy Newman.
Some people like Jordan Peterson and think that he dealt very well with Cathy Newman's questions: that's a perfectly reasonable opinion if expressed in a civilised way. Other people strongly disagree with his views and think she interviewed him very well, and exactly the same applies.
What is not OK is to abuse or threaten either of them because you disagree with the questions which Cathy Newman asked or with Jordan Peterson's responses.
As James Kirkup reports in the Spectator here, there has been entirely too much abuse of Cathy Newman for asking questions of the interviewee, which is her job, and this is as unacceptable as it was that some people on the left behaved in such a way that the BBC felt Laura Kuenssberg needed a bodyguard at Labour party conference.
The point applies whether the abuse is coming from the right or the left and whether it is a journalist or a politician.
It is entirely legitimate to say that you disagree with the policies of Esther McVey or Diane Abbott, and to call it out if you think either of them or any other politician has had a car crash interview, or produced numbers of policies which don't make sense. A certain amount of humorous teasing of politicians who have given grounds to suggest they may be mathematically challenged is also legitimate.
What is not legitimate is to criticise someone because of their gender, race or supposed weight, to refer to female politicians using insulting terms meaning a female dog or a prostitute, or to suggest even in jest and supposedly repeating the words of someone else that they should be lynched.
The level of abuse we are seeing against politicians of all parties, male and female (although what has been directed at women politicians appears to be particularly bad) is just not acceptable.
The comments made by John McDonnell about Esther McVey and the fact that he refused to apologise for them as reported here, should disqualify him from being shadow chancellor and therefore a candidate for one of the most important jobs in the country. Jeremy Corbyn's failure either to encourage McDonnell to withdraw those statements and apologise, or to sack him if he refused, raises serious questions about Corbyn's judgement and that is putting it very mildly.
Such comments should be unacceptable whichever side of the political trenches they come from.
Some people like Jordan Peterson and think that he dealt very well with Cathy Newman's questions: that's a perfectly reasonable opinion if expressed in a civilised way. Other people strongly disagree with his views and think she interviewed him very well, and exactly the same applies.
What is not OK is to abuse or threaten either of them because you disagree with the questions which Cathy Newman asked or with Jordan Peterson's responses.
As James Kirkup reports in the Spectator here, there has been entirely too much abuse of Cathy Newman for asking questions of the interviewee, which is her job, and this is as unacceptable as it was that some people on the left behaved in such a way that the BBC felt Laura Kuenssberg needed a bodyguard at Labour party conference.
The point applies whether the abuse is coming from the right or the left and whether it is a journalist or a politician.
It is entirely legitimate to say that you disagree with the policies of Esther McVey or Diane Abbott, and to call it out if you think either of them or any other politician has had a car crash interview, or produced numbers of policies which don't make sense. A certain amount of humorous teasing of politicians who have given grounds to suggest they may be mathematically challenged is also legitimate.
What is not legitimate is to criticise someone because of their gender, race or supposed weight, to refer to female politicians using insulting terms meaning a female dog or a prostitute, or to suggest even in jest and supposedly repeating the words of someone else that they should be lynched.
The level of abuse we are seeing against politicians of all parties, male and female (although what has been directed at women politicians appears to be particularly bad) is just not acceptable.
The comments made by John McDonnell about Esther McVey and the fact that he refused to apologise for them as reported here, should disqualify him from being shadow chancellor and therefore a candidate for one of the most important jobs in the country. Jeremy Corbyn's failure either to encourage McDonnell to withdraw those statements and apologise, or to sack him if he refused, raises serious questions about Corbyn's judgement and that is putting it very mildly.
Such comments should be unacceptable whichever side of the political trenches they come from.
Comments