Noam Chomsky wrote that ‘The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum’. Whether you agree with him or not, it is hardly radical to state that with regards to the media there is a frame within which debates can occur. The same principles applies to newspapers. It would be a great surprise to read that the late 2000s financial crisis is indicative of the failings of capitalism in the Daily Telegraph, or something fervently in favour of Cameron’s approach in the Guardian.

This explains the furore surrounding Nick Griffin far more than any issue of freedom of speech. Can the claim really be that publishing Nick Griffin, therefore demonstrating his views and values, is going to lead to the rise of fascism? I don’t believe so, given that when he appeared on Question Time it received record viewing figures, and he still came nowhere near even a single seat in the 2010 General Election. Surely then, his appearance in a Student Newspaper was never going to catapult him into power overnight.
Knowledge of Nick Griffin was no novelty to the reader of the Leeds Student. Even an international studeThe controversy is further rationalised as Leeds Student deviated from the standard mean. Leeds Student Newspaper had a reputation for being largely innocuous. George Galloway, a controversial figure, banned from Canada and subsequently given a no platform stance, was made to say little more than he is opposed to austerity, war and the rise in tuition fees. These views hardly collide with a large majority of those within the Large Student remit. Publishing Galloway is akin to publishing Griffin but the similarity is that both are deviations from the mean of normal debate within the Leeds Student Newspaper. George Galloway in his interview said nothing really to challenge the consensus in any great way. Nick Griffin did.

nt who was unfamiliar with British domestic affairs would have known of prejudice, in one form or another. What has led to the furore is not Griffin but where he appeared, in a newspaper which reports on student news and takes a variety of student views on national issues. Not one of these views would yield to a racist or homophobic outlook. A student writing these views would not be published. Readers flicking through the Leeds Student would have been expected a variety of views onsome other trivial matters of student life. An interview with the leader of a racist party struck a rather disconcerted chord, which explains the disappointment. No student got to aged eighteen or above unaware of fascism, racism or homophobia, but what has led to anger is that it was published in the Leeds Student.

What the Leeds Student has done is defied the usual issue of a field of debate. It may have been unpredictable and vastly disparate from expectations, but it has extended the parameters of debate and in the interview it exposed Nick Griffin.

Chris Jaffray