Letter: Mandelson ban
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Philip Harding's attempted justification for the BBC's gag on discussing Peter Mandelson's private life is disturbing, coming as it does from a public broadcaster (letter, 3 November).
He claims the BBC was simply enforcing its standing policy, which avoids discussing the private lives of public figures when doing so is not "serving the greater good". This requires the BBC to analyse a situation and decide for the public whether or not it is in the public's interest to know about it. In a live discussion, this decision rests with the BBC's representative on the spot, the interviewer.
In this case it was right to allow Peter Mandelson's sexuality to be discussed, given the context. When the issues surrounding Ron Davies' resignation are clouded by homophobia and the inability of the Cabinet of which Mr Mandelson is a senior member to take a clear position, his sexuality and the Government's attitude to it is very relevant.
The BBC gag goes much further, however: it prevents mention of any aspect of Mr Mandelson's private life, regardless of the context: that is to say, before anyone can know whether or not it is in the public interest to mention it in a particular situation.
I understand the BBC's mandate is to "inform, educate, and entertain". It is not to censor.
Cameron Smith
Glasgow
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments