The following is an open letter to the Green Party from the Canary management
Dear Green Party,
We are writing in relation to a draft motion which has been brought to our attention and which we understand may be intended for consideration at the forthcoming Green Party conference.
We appreciate that the document is a draft and may be subject to amendment. We therefore wish to raise a number of concerns and invite clarification before any conclusions are reached.
Our principal concern is that the proposed motion appears to contemplate measures concerning the relationship between Green Party members and an independent media organisation. We believe that the role of independent media in public and political discourse is important, particularly for a member-led political party, and we respectfully hope that any approach adopted will preserve an appropriate distinction between legitimate criticism of journalism and attempts to restrict or discourage independent reporting.
The Canary wishes to make clear that we support members of the Green Party, and indeed members of any community, who experience antisemitism or other forms of discrimination. We welcome any initiative intended to address discrimination and hostility towards Green Party members.
At the same time, we have a number of questions concerning the draft motion.
The draft appears to place particular emphasis upon allegations concerning antisemitism and the Canary. We are concerned that this may not fully reflect the range of experiences and perspectives held by Green Party members, including members who identify as anti-Zionist, Muslim, working class, disabled, LGBTQIA+, Jewish, or who hold more left-wing political positions.
We respectfully suggest that, if the underlying objective is to address discrimination, hostility or poor journalistic practice, the principles should be applied consistently and irrespective of the particular media organisation or political position involved.
The draft appears to refer, at least in part, to the personal social-media activity of individuals associated with the Canary.
Where individuals use personal social-media accounts in a personal capacity, we would ask that the distinction between such activity and material published by the Canary itself is maintained. We understand that IMPRESS regulation concerns the publication activities falling within its regulatory framework, rather than every statement made by an individual in a personal capacity.
We would therefore welcome clarification as to the basis upon which personal social-media activity is being considered within the proposed motion.
The Canary supports Green Party members who have experienced hostility, discrimination or what they consider to be unfair treatment from sections of the media, irrespective of their background or political position.
If the Green Party intends to encourage members to raise concerns about journalistic standards through IMPRESS or other appropriate mechanisms, we welcome that approach.
We would, however, respectfully ask whether the same principle is intended to apply to concerns arising from reporting by other media organisations, including national newspapers and broadcasters. If so, we would welcome clarification as to how the proposed policy is intended to operate consistently across the media landscape.
The draft appears to refer to matters which may give the impression that legal or regulatory proceedings involving the Canary have taken place or are contemplated.
We would be grateful if the Green Party could identify the particular matters to which those references relate, so that we can properly understand and respond to them.
To our knowledge, we have not received a complaint from IMPRESS concerning the matters apparently contemplated by the draft. If there are particular complaints, proceedings or other matters upon which the motion relies, we would appreciate being provided with sufficient particulars to enable us to understand them.
We are also concerned by any suggestion that party resources might be used in connection with potential legal action concerning an independent media organisation. We recognise that the Green Party is entitled to make its own decisions concerning the use of its resources, but believe that any such decision is properly a matter of legitimate public interest and should be considered carefully and transparently.
The draft appears to contain a number of expressions concerning the Canary, including references to material being “smeared”, involving “conspiracy theories”, being “largely badly evidenced”, “guess work”, “speculation”, “fabrication”, “half truths”, “misinformation” and “confounding the truth”.
We respectfully ask that, before such descriptions are adopted or circulated as statements of fact, the particular articles, passages or publications to which they refer are identified and the evidential basis for each criticism is made clear.
Our concern is not with robust criticism. the Canary accepts that journalism may properly be challenged and scrutinised. Rather, we ask that criticisms are expressed accurately, fairly and with sufficient particulars to allow the organisation concerned to understand and respond to them.
The draft appears to raise concerns about a potential risk of antisemitic abuse directed towards families, homes and synagogues.
We take any such concern extremely seriously. We would nevertheless appreciate clarification as to the particular material or conduct which is said to give rise to that concern, so that we can properly understand the issue and consider any appropriate response.
The Canary does not support antisemitism or anti-Muslim hatred, nor does it support discrimination against individuals because of their political or ideological views.
The Canary recognises that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are subjects upon which there are strongly held and sometimes differing views.
Our position is that criticism of Zionism, the policies of the government of Israel, or political movements and ideologies should not, without more, be treated as evidence of hostility towards Jewish people. Equally, we recognise that political expression must not become a vehicle for hostility towards Jews or any other protected group.
We believe these distinctions are important and that Jewish voices, including Jewish voices expressing differing views on Zionism, should be heard alongside other perspectives.
More generally, where concerns are raised about discrimination, hostility or harmful rhetoric affecting different communities, we believe that the same standards should be applied consistently.
We would therefore encourage an approach which recognises the different experiences of Green Party members while avoiding the impression that one organisation, community or political viewpoint is being singled out without consideration of the wider context.
The Canary is an independent media organisation. Like many news organisations, we publish material concerning individuals, organisations, and public figures where we consider that there is a legitimate journalistic basis for doing so.
We do not consider a person’s gender, background, or identity to be a reason, by itself, to exclude them from legitimate journalistic scrutiny. We seek to apply our editorial principles consistently.
We also recognise the importance of allowing individuals and organisations an opportunity to respond to matters concerning them. The Canary has a complaints procedure, and we remain subject to the applicable requirements of IMPRESS.
We would also respectfully distinguish between material published by the Canary and comments, rumours, allegations or reactions generated independently by third parties.
We cannot properly accept responsibility for statements made by others merely because those individuals may have read, discussed or reacted to material published by us. Where concerns relate specifically to material published by the Canary, we are of course willing to consider those concerns on their merits.
The Green Party is a member-led political organisation and we respectfully believe that its approach to these issues should allow room for disagreement, scrutiny and a diversity of political and journalistic viewpoints.
We are therefore concerned by any proposal which could reasonably be understood as discouraging engagement with an independent media organisation because of disagreement with its editorial position.
This is not to suggest that the Canary should be immune from criticism. Quite the contrary: we welcome substantive and evidence-based criticism and are willing to engage constructively where concerns are raised.
Our concern is simply that any policy or motion concerning independent media should be based upon clearly identified material, consistently applied principles and an opportunity for the organisation concerned to respond.
We would therefore welcome the opportunity to discuss the draft motion with the Green Party and, in particular, to receive clarification concerning the specific publications, conduct, complaints or other matters upon which the relevant passages are based.
We hope that this can be approached constructively and in the spirit of open democratic dialogue. We believe that independent journalism, political debate and legitimate scrutiny can coexist, and that disagreement should not prevent meaningful engagement between political organisations and the media.
Featured image via the Canary
By The Canary
From Canary via This RSS Feed.