Have I robustly criticised him? Yes: for hiring the Holocaust denier David Irving, and for chairing a magazine which publishes racism and praises Nazis.
I'm sure @afneil didn't like being criticised for hiring a Holocaust denier, or for chairing a magazine which churns out racism and apologia for Nazis.
But in a democratic society, I have a right to challenge him on that. Yet he defends himself by hiding behind "cancel culture".
This all kicked off after I wrote a column about Andrew Neil in 2018, the point of which was not to "cancel" him, but rather to underline the point that the claim the BBC has a left wing bias is ludicrous. (Which remains the case today). theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The false claim by @afneil, which led to a deluge of abuse including fantasies of violence, still hasn't been withdrawn.
I've never called for him to be sacked, as I said at the time:
Gaza genocide deniers like @DavidHirsh should explain, clearly and plainly:
Why have pre-eminent scholars - including in Israel - who dedicate their lives to studying genocide and indeed the Holocaust independently concluded that Israel has committed genocide?
How could academics specialising in the study of genocide get such an unbelievably extreme conclusion so wrong?
If indeed all these genocide scholars have somehow got this wrong, would they not have arrived at this conclusion on the basis of unbelievably damning evidence?
Political journalism isn’t about allowing voters to make informed decisions, thus enhancing democracy.
It’s about setting and policing the parameters of political debate - determining everything from what’s considered extreme, to what’s considered scandalous.
In practise, most British political journalism reduces politics to a character driven Westminster soap opera, based on who is up or down.
But this is itself highly ideological, because it’s based on embedding what’s seen as “serious” and politically acceptable.