Welcome to this week’s Media Watch! Remember you can get this newsletter straight into your inbox every week by clicking the banner above.
On BBC Newsnight last week, an intriguing concept was raised by former BBC presenter Matthew Stadlen as he criticised the platforming of anti-Muslim “extremist” Douglas Murray on the programme.
As he expressed his concern about the BBC interviewing the assistant editor of The Spectator – who previously accused ex-first minister Humza Yousaf of “infiltrating” the UK political system – he mentioned how the Overton window had shifted “so significantly” that Murray had been given an eight-minute interview on prime time television.
In a video podcast with The Rubin Report – a conservative US political talk show – in 2023, Murray called Yousaf the “First Minister of Gaza” and described his Palestinian wife Nadia El-Nakla as a “nasty piece of work”.
Stadlen said of him appearing on Newsnight: "Imagine just for a moment being one of the millions of British Muslims, law-abiding British Muslims, watching him say those things."
Stadlen said he didn’t want to criticise the BBC for bringing Murray on, but seemed to suggest the mainstream media was at a tricky juncture where far-right voices have now become so acceptable to the public, major broadcasters are being left with little choice but to platform them.
The Overton window is the range of subjects and arguments deemed politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is a term named after American policy analyst Joseph Overton, who proposed that the political viability of an idea depends mainly on whether it falls within an acceptability range, rather than on the individual preferences of politicians using the term or concept.
According to Overton, the window frames the range of policies that a politician may recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office given the climate of public opinion at that particular time.
What Stadlen said left me pondering what seems to be a chicken and egg situation; does the media feed the public or does the public feed the media? And how much should one feed the other?
A series of polls now have confirmed the rapid rise in support for Reform, with them now predicted to return more MPs than Labour and the Tories.
In Scotland this week, a cross-party summit is being held on tackling the rise of the far right, which the Tories are not even attending. Reform's sudden hold on society is unquestionable, like it or not.
There was a time when there was widespread criticism of Reform UK leader Nigel Farage being extensively platformed when he had had no electoral success to speak of but, as painful as it may be, the Overton window does seem to have shifted so much that we’re going to have deal with Farage on our TV screens in the years to come.
But while more populist politics may have become acceptable to society, where do mainstream media institutions like the BBC draw the line?
While there is a responsibility to platform the figures people want to hear from, is there not is also a responsibility to protect them from misinformation and harmful voices?
And while some may feel they have no choice but to platform hard-right or right-wing voices, isn’t there at least a responsibility to robustly challenge what they say?
These are questions media institutions are going to be grappling with a lot in the months to come in what is becoming an increasingly hostile political environment, and it will be fascinating to see which broadcasters and publications become effortlessly subservient to the people and which ones choose to stand up for what is right.
