Iain Dale, Oliver Kamm and Nick Ferrari all belatedly decided to stop appearing on the Iranian-backed Press T.V.
They no longer wish to lend whatever credibility their participation bestows upon this alleged propaganda machine.
What prompted these ‘principled’ resignations? For Iain Dale it was because “I have been appalled at the way their website has portrayed what’s happened in the Iranian elections” and for Nick Ferrari it was “in protest at the regime crushing dissent after the Iranian elections,” Oliver Kamm said his was because of “the station’s promotion of the work of a Holocaust denier”
But surely the clamp-down on protesters and Press T.V.s support for the Ahmadinejad regime – not to mention Holocaust denial – were not the first or the only signs that Press T.V. was something one wouldn’t want to be associated with?
This particular dilemma must have pre-dated the Iranian election fiasco. Why did the moral objections come to a head only after these terrible events?
The publicity engendered by these resignations wouldn’t have been quite the same if they had simply declined invitations to appear in the first place as I understand others have done.
There are calls for Press T.V. to be banned altogether, but where does that leave freedom of speech?
A station that features George Galloway, Yvonne Ridley and Lauren Booth, and has the ridiculous Matthew Richardson for an MD can’t have much credibility going for it, and too many bans make Jack a very dull boy..
Anyway, the dilemma applies to BBC as well, and the argument goes like this:
Does one participate in a set-up with which one profoundly disagrees in order to put the case for the other side? Or, does one have nothing to do with it in the first place?