On lockdown, a journalist’s duty is to inform the public — not to inflame it
It was always going to happen. The question posed by Covid — to lock down or to open up — has become toxic. The Government’s decision this week to keep the (rather modest) remaining restrictions in place for another month has triggered rage among a small but vociferous minority. They do not merely disagree with the decision, as many perfectly sensible people do. No, they feel entitled to fight it, tooth and claw. Protests against lockdown have turned increasingly ugly; we are only one step away from riots. For those who object to what they now claim is a plot to deprive us permanently of our liberty, the end justifies almost any means.
One incident this week has rightly received coverage: the hounding of a BBC journalist by a mob of anti-lockdown protesters. Nick Watt, who is the political correspondent of Newsnight, was accosted in Westminster by “Resistance GB”, an anti-lockdown group. Realising that he worked for the BBC (from his lanyard, since these activists never watch what they see as a propaganda organisation), they allegedly confronted Watt with a camera, accusing him of lying and biased reporting. Protesters gathered, yelling “traitor” and “scum”. Watt was pursued into Downing Street, where he sought refuge behind the security gate.
The incident was filmed and later published online by the group, eliciting a tweet from the Prime Minister: “Disgraceful to see Nick Watt hounded for doing his job. The media must be able to report the facts without fear or favour — they are the lifeblood of our democracy.” The Metropolitan Police are now investigating the affair, after criticism for failing to intervene. A man, Martin Hockridge, has now been charged with a public order offence.
Threats and violence in the name of freedom are obviously intolerable, not only against BBC staffers but against anyone. Some journalists, though, have gone over the top in their support for such protests. Richard Littlejohn, the Daily Mail columnist who never pulls his punches, wrote this week of his “raw fury” at the postponement of Freedom Day. Many will agree with him that Boris Johnson’s “word isn’t worth the paper it’s not written on”. But does that justify conspiracy theories, accusing scientists of mendacity or worse? “The science can always rustle up another variant to scare the hell out of everyone and prolong the agony for another few months,” he writes.
This is irresponsible, rabble-rousing journalism. One may reasonably disagree with the Prime Minister’s decision to follow the scientific advice. I set out the arguments for that decision here yesterday; they seem to me compelling, but I accept that others are unpersuaded. Littlejohn, though, shows no sign of having examined the evidence. In his eyes, the only possible motives for the decision are sinister — a view for which he also provides no evidence.
In the Telegraph Charles Moore, who was once Boris’s boss, does not doubt his good faith; he simply begs to differ. With his usual cool logic, he argues that the decision was a “mistake”. In a free society, “the presumption must…be on the side of normality”. He does not blame scientists for spelling out the risks and “erring on the side of caution”, but the elected politicians for failing to give proper weight to the downside of lockdowns: “delayed cancer treatments, jobs, businesses, education, holidays, weddings, human freedom and fun”. He concludes that the Government would “find itself paying a political price”. Lord Moore says he has consequently abandoned his “weedy middle-of-the-road position on lockdowns”. He is now a sceptic.
For once, I happen to disagree with my old friend and former Editor, while fully respecting his change of heart and mind. I find it less easy to sympathise with Dan Wootton, one of the presenters of GB News, which was launched this week. Wootton, whose programme takes up an inordinate amount of time (three hours) almost every evening on the new TV channel, appears to have been given carte blanche to interview every anti-lockdown sceptic he can find, while pouring scorn on the other side of the argument. Last night I watched him interview Trevor Kavanagh, the Sun columnist and former political editor, who was suggesting all kinds of dark motives for the continuation of restrictions. I know and like Trevor Kavanagh, but on this subject — well outside his range of expertise — he was unconvincing. Yet Wootton failed to ask a single critical question, let alone to confront Kavanagh with the scientific data on which the Government’s decision was actually based. Earlier, Wootton had interviewed Claire Fox, the libertarian peer who is another fierce lockdown sceptic. Again, I like Claire and often agree with her, but she will forgive me for doubting her credentials on this subject. And where were the voices on the other side of the argument? The only person whom I have seen subject Wootton to (very brief) scrutiny was Andrew Neil, the prime mover of GB News, who is too good a journalist to ignore the facts. But a TV station cannot rely on one man to provide balance. GB News has been accused of apeing Fox News, but Wootton is cruder and less accomplished than his US counterparts. While I hope very much that GB News succeeds, I suspect that Wootton is putting off many viewers, dragging the channel downmarket and will eventually land it in trouble with the regulators.
British democracy thrives on vigorous debate and the Government’s response to Covid is eminently deserving of informed criticism and reasoned opposition. But the journalists, MPs and other public figures who have denounced lockdown and other measures would do well to keep calm if they wish to carry on. The country may indeed be divided not only over the restrictions but also into winners and losers from the pandemic. For that very reason, the potential for political polarisation and serious disorder is obvious. The sceptics should take a leaf out of Charles Moore’s book. Lighting their torches from the incendiary rhetoric of the Woottons of this world is dangerous and irresponsible.
A Message from TheArticle
We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.
