Stop Funding Hate: Campaign against media hate rhetoric (Daily Fail, Sun, Daily Express)

[TeamEponine]

Yesterday a campaign was launched called Stop Funding Hate. It aims to tackle the papers that spread fear and hate, and then profit from this. The idea is to persuade advertisers to remove their adverts, and consequently their funding, from these media outlets. Virgin Media is the first being targeted as Richard Branson has been openly critical of the media’s divisive strategies.

Facebook page with more information and a great video that can be shared: www.facebook.com/stopfundinghate

Petition on 38 degrees: you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/virgin-media-pull-your-sun-advertising

The hashtag #stopfundinghate is also being used on Twitter.

I am nothing to do with this campaign, so this isn’t self-promotion. I just feel strongly that the media are irresponsible and that they contribute to the creation of fear and hate in this country. This is the first thing that seems to allow me to do something proactive, so I thought I’d share it.

Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, but I couldn't find anything! I also wasn't sure where to post it, so I hope this is the right place.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

• Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I may defend their right to say it, Suppermummy02 but I don't have to pay them to say it, either directly or indirectly.
That's what this boils down to - it's not anti-free speech, it's about making an informed choice about where our money goes, and letting companies know that we will be doing so.

squishysquirmy, but this campaign is not "don't buy the newspapers you don't like", its "put pressure on others to try and get the newspapers we nominate shut down".

I don't buy newspapers I dont like, but pressuring others into accepting censorship is anti free speech, dictatorial and wrong.

If I buy products from a company, and that company spends some of that income on apying for advertising in a paper, then I have indirectly given money to that paper.

The reason why certain news papers are printing increasingly "controversial" (often downright misleading and offensive) clickbait headlines is to compete for shrinking advertising revenue. It is a positive feedback loop - as the papers normalize controversial opinions, the public's tolerance for them increases, and they need to move even further right to retain the power to shock (see "Overton window").

Like all positive feedback loops, this is going to get worse and it is driven by advertising revenue. Applying an opposite pressure to advertising revenue is not destroying free speech and it is not about shutting those papers down. It is about restoring balance.

Everyone has a right to free speech, but we are not obliged to pay them to say it.

"...then I have indirectly given money to that paper*

There probably isn't a war, company, billionaire tax dodger or political party that you haven't indirectly given money to. The company you pay money to, to get your internet, indirectly contributes to that paper and yet here you are online indirectly contributing.

It is your opinion that a newspaper prints 'misleading and offensive' headlines and we have laws against printing hate speech or lies. But if you get together in a group and shut down a newspaper by starving it of legal advertising then you are censoring peoples views just because you don't like them.

And what do you think happens when you suppress peoples views by indirect censorship? It does not restore a balance, it polarises those views and they becomes harder and more extreme. That probably contributed to millions of peoples opinions of the EU when their views of immigration was suppressed for years by labelling it racism.

The idea of minority pressure groups shutting newspapers because they don't like what is said is very close to mob rule and more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

If you want to successful challenge and change a view then the best way to do it is by exposing it to free speech, which is exactly how the BMP was destroyed. That is why I support free speech not liberal censorship.

Actually this isn't necessarily about shutting the papers down. IMO it's more about there being some pressure, more of a voice in the public discourse that says 'talking like that about eg refugees isn't acceptable, we shun you, think more carefully.' Because that's how society works, surely? John Lewis (for example) pulling out of Mail Group newspapers is like Kelloggs pulling out of Breitbart (sp?). It's saying 'we believe you should stop there and go back a way' .

It hardly counts as mob rule, that's daft. There's a lot more mob-like stuff going on than polite letters at the moment, sadly. John Lewis et al are under no obligation whatsoever to advertise in particular newspapers. I would like to think businesses could make a judgement about what will 'play well' with their customers, and this customer has told them what would play well with her. That's market forces, not mob rule. (there's a good essay title for an economics student!)

But sadly the laws against printing lies, such as they are, are expensive and convoluted to enforce, and generally result in teeny weeny apologies at the very best. Usually nothing at all. Tolerance and safety can't be left simply to law enforcement. We have to buy into the society we want, talk about it including with our 'suppliers', and be active citizens in defence of the values we believe in.

MaryMargaret Freedom of speech is a fundamental part of our democracy, it should never be subjected to market forces. What your suggesting is that people exert financial pressure to censor the news. Where do you think that leads?

If you censor newspapers people don't change their views they just feel victimised and you make the issue worse.

To buy into the society we want, we need to talk about the values we want and explain and debate why they are good for everyone verses the alternative. Censoring the views of a majority very large minority is not buying into society its excluding people from society.

And who is it that will decide what views are deemed worthy of being allowed advertising, the mobs?

All that stuff a few months ago in the papers about Cameron having sex with a pig's head. There was no actual evidence for that, iirc, it was just a story, but there was a long thread on Mumsnet which turned into a Cameron hate fest and went on about how typical it was of him, how disgusting etc.
Although there was no evidence loads of posters believed it. Surely a story like that is pretty hateful but I can't remember anyone pointing that out.

In a country that is very heavily congested. Where the infrastructure is overloaded. Where houses are not affordable. Where hospitals, schools, doctors surguries and other social services are working beyojnd capacity.

I see very little in the way of benefit to the population of the country growing by 350,000 as it did over the last 12 months as a result of net inward migration. I also do not see much benefit when significant numbers of the new arrivals do not speak English as a first language and follow a culture that is sometimes in conflict with the traditions of this country.

Yet I am sure someone will now try to suggest that is a hate comment.

supermummy do you really think news is independent of market forces at the moment??

But I wasn't talking about news, or even opinion. I was talking about lies, of which we have seen numerous, and hate, which is an emotion, and incitement to hate, which is an offence (as in a crime).

I really don't think it's wrong to bring market forces to bear on any of those. Free speech only works if people use it responsibly. That's why people get arrested for tweets calling for other people's murder. Is that acceptable free speech? As a society we have decided it isn't. Would you want to change that?

itsnoteasy no, i don't see that as a hate comment, i see it as a legitimate quest for information (assuming that if someone showed you benefit you would accept the evidence!).

What is hateful is people who don't look for information but instead jump to conclusions and use those conclusions to demonise one group of people. Which you weren't doing.

do you really think news is independent of market forces
In the sense that you choose to buy the paper or not no. But I am not aware of large amount of pressure to censor what news is released. I know I have no choice about contributing to the state news and as far as I know they are obliged to produce neutral, balanced, unbiased news.

I was talking about lies
Your not, your talking about your opinion.

Free speech only works if people use it responsibly
Again NO, that is the opposite of free speech. Free speech only works if people are free to say what ever they want (within legal restraints) without fear. Most news will have something in it that offends someone, so it would be ridiculous to only allow news that is inoffensive. News is allowed to be offensive and I support that even if I don't like it.

Calling for someones murder is incitement to violence and is illegal. I am talking about legal free speech.

MaryMargaret, do you really want to live in a nanny state where news is only permitted if it has been sanctioned as not being offensive? Isn't that N.Korea?