Against: Paul Sagar, a first year PPEist at BalliolThe Sun is offensive. It offends women, immigrants, asylum seekers and also those who
are simply offended when others are offended: those who do not wait till they personally are
attacked before believing something to be abhorrent. No matter how good The Sun’s
football coverage may be, it in no way compensates for its odious nature. With such an
issue, we would all do well to heed the words of Mill’s Harm Principle, that one is free to act
as one wishes until their behaviour causes harm to others. I can hold no objection to
somebody purchasing The Sun with their own finances and reading it in privacy. However to
propose that it be bought with collective finances and displayed in a JCr cannot be
permitted, because no matter how great the pleasure derived by the readers of The Sun
may be, if even one person is offended by the material printed within it, the offence caused,
which I would go so far as to say constitutes harm, far outweighs that pleasure gained. It seems best to begin by refuting the three most common arguments for stocking The Sun.
Firstly, that it makes for a more diverse JCr. The thrust of this argument seems to be that all
the newspapers currently stocked here in the Balliol at least, are of the same sort. However
one can easily point to the presence of the Independent, the express, the Guardian, the
Mirror and the Morning Star to cast serious doubt upon this argument. Furthermore, there
seems something odd about championing. The Sun as a source of diversity: let’s not forget
this is a vehemently right-wing publication, has repeatedly targeted ethnic minorities and
immigrants. The Sun is the antithesis of diversity, to claim otherwise
would be twisted logic indeed. Secondly some argue that the presence of The Sun will
diminish Oxford’s eliist image. This argument rests upon the view that the enough
people will visit our JCrs so as to convince the entire nation that because we read The Sun,
we’re all very normal. even if one accepted this as a possibility (albeit an unpleasant one,
as our JCrs, and not just our quads, would all be full of camera-wielding tourists), then one
must accept the other implications that go with it. While people may think that Oxford
students are more “normal” than the current stereotype allows, they may also think that as a
community we condone some of the other features of The Sun, for example misogyny and
sexist attitudes. I’m all for the world knowing we’re not snobs, but I don’t want to be
considered a chauvinist either.Finally, it’s argued that all papers have agendas and tell lies, from the Telegraph’s
accusations against George Galloway to the Mirror’s faked Iraq photos. The crucial
difference is that whereas both these papers picked targets that could defend themselves,
The Sun chooses to victimise minority groups who cannot stand up to the press, and who
are further marginalised by the stereotypes printed in its pages. The Sun categorically
should not be stocked in our JCrs. Firstly, the hegemony of the Murdoch press is a worrying
development in national and global media and is bad for freedom of expression, freedom
of ideas and freedom of information. Most JCrs already stock the Times, so there seems
little justification for further financing the growth of the Murdoch empire. To quote nick
Cohen, “the only thing that sells better than sex is hate”, and The Sun is an expert at this. In
1989, following the Hillsborough football disaster, The Sun ran an article stating that the
crush that killed 96 people was deliberately started by Liverpool FC fans, who then urinated
on people’s bodies and stole their belongings. an inquest later dismissed all these
accusations, but the fact remains that The Sun lied to make money. Indeed The Sun is well
versed in spreading hate: the infamous headline “Gotcha!” to announce the sinking of the
argentine ship Belgrano, which had been sailing away from British waters, is a stark
reminder of its callous and offensive nature. The Sun is not just “another newspaper”: it
spreads hate and bigotry specifically to make money. I for one do not support that. do we
want JCrs where members of our community are offended because some are too selfish to
pay for an offensive publication themselves, or JCrs where the protection from offence, even
of a minority, is considered more important than the desires of a few? I leave it to you.For: Andrew Mason, a second year reading Physics and Philosophy at BalliolI believe that press representation in JCrs is an excellent thing. newspapers are
generally not provided to us by libraries and that JCrs fill this informational
deficiency is a testament to the general engagement of our students with the outside
world. nobody should be excluded from this fundemental service. and yet, twice now,
substantial majorities at Balliol JCr meetings have blocked the provision of The Sun to that
proportion of its members who want to read it. We have just as much right as any other
member to find the newspaper we want in the JCr – telling us to go buy it ourselves
misses the point dangerously. Excluding anyone from core JCr services needs a good
reason. Moreover, omitting sections of the press creates informational gaps: if those
‘opposed’ in some way to The Sun read it occasionally they may appreciate its work for
social integration and breakdown of racial prejudice in the poorest, stupidest sections of
society. Balliol JCr is arbitrarily excluding a minority from service provision in a shameful
way.Consider this: a sizeable minority of a JCr affiliates to a certain political viewpoint that is
highly unpopular with their peers. Wanting to access the JCr newspaper service, they take a
motion to a meeting requesting that the JCr orders their political newspaper, and the
motion is defeated. Surely the reader agrees that a bad thing just happened, that this
minority ought to access this JCr service just as everyone else, regardless of political
affiliation. For is not the protection of such minorities precisely what constitutional
democracies like JCrs are designed to guarantee? At both Sun debates powerful cases
were made that spending JCr money on the newspaper would mean an endorsement of
what people perceive to be its values, including but not limited to murder, racism and
homophobia, gypsy-tipping, rape and pillage and general societal mischief-making. This is
fair enough, and admirable in its way. But it’s also completely misguided. If I buy every kind
of chocolate in a shop, one couldn’t say I endorse anything whatsoever (except
comprehensive chocolate buying!). If a JCr buys newspapers supporting every possible
viewpoint, how can it endorse one in particular? Moreover purchase of a newspaper entails
no endorsement at all. London Underground commuters bemoan late trains, dirty
platforms and endless upgrades on the Circle Line, and certainly don’t endorse their mode
of transport, yet tomorrow they will buy tickets as normal: it’s the only way to get to work. No
economic choice is being made. JCrs choose to provide newspapers that members want
to read, not to provide certain newspapers and not others. A clear case for political
newspapers, but The Sun is not quite the same. Whilst some object to The Sun on political
grounds, the majority object on grounds of distaste. and can we say that the potential
offence of a majority of a JCr is good reason to deny a minority access to a newspaper?Those who gladly read their own preferred newspapers but do not allow another minority to
read theirs are guilty of a critical failure of ‘doing unto others as they do unto you’.
nevertheless, JCrs are small communities, and application of such principles
is not always appropriate. If twenty of its members get really upset at the very sight of their
peers reading the newspaper they want to read, then no matter how ultimately petty we
consider their objection is, that still constitutes a serious welfare issue. But Oxford
colleges that do receive The Sun contain no population of the really upset, even exeter,
which until recently received two copies (now reduced to one to accommodate Private eye).
doubt not: if Balliol received The Sun already, those same people who blocked it at two GMs
would read with a sneer or a smile and without objection. and in the possible world where
St Hugh’s didn’t get The Sun, and a member of the JCr proposed to a meeting that they
should, then of course there is name-calling, JCr hysteria and shouts of derision. Making
things upset us is easy: changing that is not. I contend that society is always a better place
when we swallow our own upsets and let people do what they want. In the real world, taking
offence at others’ activities is called intolerance and the very last thing we do is let it restrict
the activities of others. I don’t care if you think I’m just a dirty bastard wanting to lookat tits. I
am a member of Balliol JCR – can I not have access to its services?ARCHIVE: 4th week MT 2005
The Sun – should we love it?
