Sir, – The CNN international correspondent Christiane Amanpour recently urged fellow journalists (and editors) to stop using the ludicrous plea that all opinion is valid and deserves to be aired. She said, "I believe in being truthful, not neutral". I am with her and believe I am not alone. There is no merit in losing all sense of proportionate righteousness in pursuit of a spurious neutrality. I suggest The Irish Times adopt this stance and head into battle! – Yours, etc,
MARION COY,
Kilbannon,
Tuam, Co Galway.
Sir, – Una Mullally in her piece "Why the Irish Times should not have published Nicholas Pell" (Opinion & Analysis, January 5th) notes the alt-right's debating techniques, in which they claim "humour" or "irony" as a defence for bigoted statements. Presumably I can use the same prerogative to question whether she means what she says, when claiming "I am all for opinions being challenged". She argues that people who are opposed to racism, inequality and injustices have their opinions challenged every day by the social conditions fostered by neoliberal and conservative societies.
For one thing, I reject the implication that a newspaper’s decision to facilitate both sides of an argument should depend on the societal conditions of the country in which the newspaper circulates. Furthermore, being subject to inequality is not the same thing as having one’s opinions about the nature of that inequality challenged.
The alt-right deserves much of the criticism it has received in the reaction to Nicholas Pell's article (January 4th).
But everyone needs regular reminders of why they think what they do. It isn’t good enough to simply throw words like “Nazi” at a problem and hope it goes away. George Orwell pointed out over 70 years ago that “fascist” had become an almost meaningless word used to describe anything its user didn’t like.
We promote and develop our values all the more strongly for directly confronting their opponents. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. – Yours, etc,
LUAN HASSETT,
Baltimore,
Co Cork.