Letter to Talksport
Thursday, November 13, 2008 Thanks to everyone who has written to Talksport about the suspension of Jon Gaunt (see Tuesday's post). Yesterday I spoke again to the station and a decision on Jon's future is expected to be taken shortly. (I have also spoken to Jon himself and he is grateful for our support.)
The press office tells me that many of the emails they have received miss the point. The case against Jon has nothing (they say) to do with smoking, or passive smoking, or foster care, it's to do with "unprofessional" behaviour by a broadcaster who by his own admission lost his rag.
For what it's worth, an edited version of Forest's letter to Talksport reads as follows:
Further to our telephone conversation, I am writing on behalf of Forest, the smokers lobby group whose supporters include Antony Worrall Thompson (our patron), artist David Hockney, musician Joe Jackson and Oscar-winning screenwriter Ronald Harwood.
With regard to the suspension of presenter Jon Gaunt, I write in support of Jon and request that he be reinstated as soon as possible. I don't condone Jon's heat-of-the-moment "nazi" jibe. It's a term that can be misconstrued. In the context of this particular discussion, however, it is clear that it was used as shorthand for "health nazi" (or "health fascist") which is a fairly common expression these days, and was not intended to be anything more sinister.
I also believe that Jon Gaunt was speaking from the heart. I understand that he feels strongly about child welfare, having spent his early teens in a care home himself. This is an issue he is clearly passionate about, and he made his feelings known. Jon has admitted that on this occasion he got it wrong and over-reacted. Some will argue that it was unprofessional of him to lose his temper, but we all make mistakes. Jon was simply being human.
I repeat, I am not condoning what happened but I believe there was a degree of provocation and I would argue that without courageous, outspoken presenters such as Jon Gaunt, Talksport would be a shadow of itself and it would lose the very clear identity it has in the marketplace.
Talksport is a beacon for free speech and open debate. Please don't sully that reputation by taking further action against Jon. The company has made its point by suspending him. His early reinstatement would send out an equally strong message that your presenters are not robots. They are human and they are as passionate as your listeners about the issues they discuss.
Jon Gaunt hasn't committed a crime. He is an excellent broadcaster and journalist who, provoked, made one small error of judgement. We would be deeply disappointed if Talksport took his comments out of context and took further action against him.
Note: I stand by my comments about Jon Gaunt's "nazi" jibe and his "error of judgement". Guests and callers can say whatever they like (as long as it's not criminal or defamatory). As a professional broadcaster, Jon has to be more careful because radio and TV stations have clear editorial guidelines.
(As it happens we are currently seeking an on-air apology from BBC Radio Northampton for comments made about smokers during an interview with Forest's Neil Rafferty earlier this week. The comments weren't made by a guest or a caller, they were made by the presenter in breach, we believe, of BBC guidelines. Watch this space.)
As a professional lobbyist, I too have to watch my words. There's a time and a place for strong language and Forest spokesmen wouldn't feature so regularly on radio and television or in print if we didn't give "good copy", but there is a line to be drawn. If we accused our opponents indiscriminately and repeatedly of being "nazis" and "fascists" we would be packed off to the funny farm - or forced to campaign exclusively via the internet because very few broadcasters and journalists would touch us with a bargepole.
I appreciate some of the arguments that have been posted on this blog justifying the use of these words in the context of the smoking/health debate. In fact, the term "health fascist" has been used (discriminately) by Forest spokesmen for years.
The problem is, if you use words like "nazi" and "fascist" in isolation you have to justify it - and today's soundbite culture rarely gives you that luxury. Like it or not, most people associate the word "nazi" with the murder of millions of people. That's the reality. Explaining the entire back story to justify the use of the word in a press release or quote is rarely, if ever, an option. Meanwhile you risk alienating a large proportion of your audience including (in my experience) a great many smokers who cringe when they hear that sort of language.
BTW, I read (on another website) that I am being given a "pasting" on this blog following my earlier post. (Pasting? It's more like being tickled.)
"He deserves it" adds someone who, a few weeks ago, invited me to be his "friend" on Facebook. How creepy is that?!
Simon Clark
The Guardian is reporting that Gaunt could be back on air next week. See HERE. Meanwhile he is appearing on This Week with Diane Abbott MP and Michael Portillo on BBC1 tonight at 11:35pm (after Question Time).
Simon Clark
Jon Gaunt has emailed to say that contrary to the Guardian report the situation is "nowhere near solved" so we need to keep up the pressure to have him reinstated. In the meantime he thanks everyone for their support. If you haven't done so, please email stephen.farmer@talksport.co.uk.
People
Reader Comments (8)
There's a much more subtle defence of the use of the word 'nazi'. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany.
Will be surprised if you don't know this, but anyway...
Simon, your general comments are of course quite right, no one can argue against the points you make especially about the use of language. Diplomacy is indeed required at certain times.
However, I must repeat that I heard the entire interview by Jon Gaunt. Michael Stark, of Redbridge council came across as an unctuous prig, with little or no sensitivity for those people who smoked and wanted to foster children so that they could provide a caring and loving home.
This man gave absolutely no valid reason – other than threadbare propaganda – as to why people that smoked should not have the opportunity to adopt. What right has been invested in this political correctee and his council, to arbitrarily decide the long-term fate of disadvantaged children because of their self-righteous politics?
Yes, certainly Jon Gaunt gave Michael Stark a tough ride, but Mr Stark handled himself quite well, but I didn’t think Jon lost his temper…and even if he says he did…he then apologised immediately after the interview to the listeners. He was sent several messages of support (including one from me) straight after the interview, saying that he had no need to say sorry.
Talksport is about strong opinions, and anyone being interviewed knows exactly what they are letting themselves in for, this isn’t radio four, where you can group hug and feel each others pain.
This is a station where powerful emotions are expected to have a front seat…and long may it continue!
Simon Clark wrote:The problem is, if you use words like "nazi" and "fascist" in isolation you have to justify it - and today's soundbite culture rarely gives you that luxury. Like it or not, most people associate the word "nazi" with the murder of millions of people. That's the reality. Explaining the entire back story to justify the use of the word in a press release or quote is rarely, if ever, an option.
Doesn't this just go to show how our modern mass media have sunk to the lowest common denominator, and abandoned any attempt to educate its consumers while pandering to their most vulgar preconceptions? No wonder that more and more people, starved by the media of substantive information, turn to the internet to find it.
For all I know, most people associate the word "Queen" with the rock band of that name, and with their hits 'Bohemian Rhapsody' and 'We Are The Champions', and explaining the entire 'back story' about Queen Elizabeth II and the English crown isn't 'an option' either.
And anyway who is who decides what 'most people' think? Wouldn't it be truer to say that these sweeping generalisations are nothing more than the prejudices and preconceptions of the ignorant and ill-educated journalists who produce this sort of pap?
Jon came across as a very caring person, on This Week. They were talking about the killing of baby'P'. Dianne Abbott MP for Hackney agreed with Jon in everything he said. Jon said that Redbridge should not be stopping smokers from fostering, when there is a great need for caring foster parents. As for baby'P' Jon said that when there is a real danger with a child,the child should be taken from the parent(s) immediately and not left as a last resort.
Talk Sport should listen to that programme and get Cllr Stark to apologise to Jon.
Jon has continued the debate in the sun.
Jon Gaunt | Put innocent babies before wheelie bins | The Su...
13 Nov 2008 ... Jon Gaunt | Responsibility for Baby P lies with Labour and Guardianistas they've created in public life.
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists..
Google 'the sun' and then search for Jon Gaunt.He would love comments.
"I have also spoken to Jon himself and he is grateful for our support."
Nice to hear that. If, as I think someone mentioned on the previous thread, he was supportive of the smoking ban before, I hope he now sees what can happen once these health fascists (is that ok ;-)?) are given an inch.
I agreed with pretty much all that Jon Gaunt said on This Week but I would advise extreme caution in tarring the underclass with the same brush as the "parents" of baby P.
There is, acutally, a class below the underclass, a "sub-class" if you like, which is where these "parents" are more likely to come from.
Jon said the underclass is dependent on the welfare state and doesn't want to improve or find work. I would argue against that. Yes, some of those in the sub-class will never work. They are thick, undisciplined and without aspiration unless it depends on making money in illegal ways so maybe we have to find a way of including them or encouraging them.
Legalise cannabis, for example, and you will find that these sort of people will become the new market garden business men and women of the new age.
The underclass does want to work and improve but what chance have they got. They are viewed with suspicion and treated with scorn. If they don't have aspirations it's because they don't dare to hope. Hope in modern Britain costs money.
Financial security without hope comes from the regular pittance benefits they are paid. I would defy any of the underclasses' critics to live on what is metered out to one family each week.
They certainly have had less chance to move upwards socially since Nu Lab came to power and priced the poor out of meaningful education. With the ruination of the Family Credit system, they now have less motivation to work in very low paid mundane jobs than before when it gave them an incentive to work, get on training schemes and gradually pull themselves out of the mire that is the trap of poverty.
It would NEVER be right to blame all of Britain's social ills on the underclass which often happens because they are an easy target.
If the underclass, or sub-class, live on the outskirts of British society, then I would argue it's because they have been well and truly excluded from the main stream by NuLab who have pushed them further out with a host of exclusive policies and laws that are aimed exclusively at them. Inadequacy has today become synonymous with anti-social behaviour.
I also believe that the smoking ban has further isolated and excluded people from "decent" society and the hounding of smokers from every public place is further evidence that the underclass are not welcome in their own country.
But NAZI should be sinister; this policy reeks of national socialism...we are just a few small steps away from a totalitarian state