LSE media law specialist Dr Andrew Scott has queried the actions of LSE Students’ Union officials who barred The Beaver from publishing a story that probed the Union’s management of student entertainments.
The Beaver, a member of the LSE Students’ Union Media Group, is governed by the Media Group Protocol – a document that identifies the rights and privileges of the Media Group’s constituent agencies.
Specifically, the Protocol notes that the Union’s “executive committee, especially the sabbatical officers … shall retain the right to remove or stop publication or broadcast of any content that may be illegal, unlawful or libellous.” They may also act to remove material that breach the Union’s equal opportunities policy.
The Protocol specifically confers upon The Beaver “full editorial and managerial independence” from the Executive Committee and the Union General Meeting.
The story, which criticised Union officials for failing to meet their objective of attracting LSE students to the Union’s entertainment event on Saturday nights, was censored at the weekly pre-publication meeting attended by three Union officials – General Secretary Aled Dilwyn Fisher, Education and Welfare Officer Emmanual Akpan-Inwang, and Communications Officer Rob Low – and two Beaver editorial staff members – Executive Editor Shibani Mahtani and Managing Editor Sanjiv Nanwani. The primary purpose of this pre-publication meeting was for the Union officials, as publishers of the paper, to check its content for anything potentially libelous or illegal.
The material was considered improper for publication as it would have allegedly violated the spirit of an agreement that was signed between the Union and the external promoter, which Union officials have refused to name. Fisher claimed that the article’s publication would subject the Union, which is The Beaver’s primary financier, to the risk of legal prosecution by the aforementioned promoter.
Furthermore, Fisher noted that the article’s publication would harm the Union’s commercial interests and financial position, including its ability to finance the activities of clubs and societies such as The Beaver.
Fisher was unable to present the contract despite multiple requests to do so by members of The Beaver’s editorial board over the past week.
Subsequent to the decision, the editorial board consulted Dr Andrew Scott, a Senior Lecturer in Law at the LSE who specialises in media law and regulation. This was done to verify whether there existed a legal basis on which the story could be pulled. Scott’s research interests include “the law of contempt, privacy and defamation, broadcasting regulation and freedom of political expression, and the regulation of journalistic newsgathering practices.”
Responding to The Beaver’s request for comment, Scott said: “They cannot cite ‘commercial sensitivities’ as a basis for censorship; they cannot pretend that actions of The Beaver could amount to breach by them of their contractual promises (unless the editor was in fact doing their bidding); they should not browbeat Beaver journalists to secure the newspaper that they would have others read, and they should never offer any implicit threat to withhold future funding in case of failure to ‘comply’.”
The Beaver’s editorial board then voted to condemn the actions of the sabbatical team, which appeared to compromise the paper’s editorial independence contrary to its founding principles. Mahtani was also mandated to formally convey the board’s views to the sabbatical team.
Former Executive Editor Joseph Cotterill, who strongly opposed the Sabbatical’s intervention, remarked: “I dealt with and redressed two genuine libel claims [last year], neither of which the sabbatical officers spotted, for all their much-vaunted ‘libel check’. With this background, I believe this to be quite the most amateurish and incoherent objection to publication that I have seen in a very long time.”
Acknowledging the Beaver’s concerns, Fisher relented and acquiesced to the article’s publication in this week’s issue of the paper. This agreement subject to numerous conditions such as the printing of a free advertisement for the event.
Fisher also demanded that The Beaver neither report nor editorialise on the recent incident – a condition which was refused by the editorial board. This immediately resulted in the sabbatical team issuing a renewed gagging order on the original story.
Fisher justified this by claiming that The Beaver should be focusing on other issues “at a time when student satisfaction is at a low level, teaching is a serious problem, and there are massive changes going on in the fundamental way that higher education is run.” He urged the paper to be similarly “animated about some of the more serious issues affecting LSE students.”
Station Manager of Pulse Radio, Rob Charnock, said: “If we fail to hold Union officials accountable, there will be fewer incentives to increase the success of future events. I feel to censor based on this is not only unconstitutional, but incredibly short sighted.”
Mahtani, speaking on behalf of the editorial board, said: “The purpose of the Beaver is to hold the Union accountable, to hold the School accountable, and to make sure that we are always a platform for the voices of LSE students. If we are unable to print stories concerning commercial activities of the Union, how are we meant to keep our readers informed? We see no reason why our responsibility to report on issues pertinent to the student body should be curtailed because of tenuous legal and commercial arguments. We aim to do our utmost to protect our editorial independence.”
Criticising The Beaver’s decision to report on the gag, Low, who is also the Convenor of the Media Group, said: “The School must be loving The Beaver right now – all their failings are going unreported. If editors weren’t wasting their time damaging the Union, they would be able to print news that directly affects students. Despite the Sabbs plying editors with information, we are yet to see stories on serious issues.”
Related posts:
- The Beaver's biased reporting
- Beaver Monologues: The editor's annual report
- Election candidates stake claims to Union office
- Election reform defeated amid Union General Meeting chaos
- Union Jack