Rod Liddle, an associate editor of The Spectator’s UK edition, has caused a storm. His incendiary comments made on July 3 have already received huge outcry and condemnation. Liddle’s comments have been grossly condemned. From incitement to commit violence to shameful suggestions to commit rape against elected officials, they touch upon critical issues related to the ethical role of humor in a journalistic environment.
In a recent column, Liddle floated the idea of murdering “hundreds of thousands of people.” On its face, this statement was intended to stifle the outrage from these diverse sets of groups. He suggested we should be bombing large gatherings such as the Glastonbury music festival and Brighton. Her death sparked outrage to the point of worrying that violence was being normalized in the public debate.
Liddle unnecessarily piped more gas onto the fire by recounting the episode. He argued that TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson was reported to have launched an “unprovoked assault” on his producer. Though she fits dark humor into her line of questioning, Liddle has a real gift for introducing gravitas. He employs this obfuscating style in order to distance himself from the logical conclusions of his words.
Liddle made headlines for proposing that Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, should be “made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while crowds chant, ‘Shame!’” Such remarks are indicative of a trend in which humor acts as a moral fig leaf for repugnant views. Critics say Liddle’s remarks are more than a bit of humor. They argue that these statements contribute to a culture of dehumanization and harassment—including against public women, such as female candidates.
Despite the backlash, Liddle remained unapologetic. When confronted with complaints about his incendiary speculations, he dismissed the concerns with a flippant remark: “Calm down dear, can’t you take a joke?” This answer is representative of a large problem in our media today.
Issue of truth
Figures like Liddle often evade consequence for their statements by framing them as jokes.
Paul Marshall, Liddle’s employer and co-owner of GB News, is a hedge fund hectomillionaire. He hasn’t given any sign that he plans to distance himself from the controversial opinion-haver. Marshall’s financial backing raises further questions about the influence of wealthy individuals on journalistic integrity and the types of discourse that are permitted under the guise of free speech.
Former British justice secretary and Liddle’s current editor, Michael Gove, hasn’t withdrawn his support for Liddle even now that the scandal has deepened. This alignment shows that many mainstream media outlets accept such radical positions. Liddle’s attempt to normalize shocking standards is working — he’s being viewed more and more as an outlier, someone to be chuckled at or mildly scolded rather than held responsible for his hateful rhetoric.
Liddle’s strategy of hiding behind humor seems to give him a free pass for this type of insidiousness. His style runs the risk of crossing lines while maintaining his legislative platform. This contributes to a culture where incitement and mockery have become the currency of political debate.