ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

Tom Sutcliffe was interviewing the philosopher Professor Erich Hatala Matthes about his new book, β€œDrawing the Line”, which explores whether it is possible to separate art from the artist, within the context of what is known as cancel culture.Β  Professor Matthes used JK Rowling as a case study because of the criticism she has attracted for her views on gender identity.Β  As part of this discussion, Mr Sutcliffe asked the following question:

And do you think there’s a major philosophical distinction between artists who have committed crimes, have been found guilty of crimes, and artists who simply have unpopular opinions?Β  You bring up the case of JK Rowling who clearly has a very unpopular opinion regarding gender identity and has, as a consequence of that, faced severe and serious criticism.Β  Are those the same things?

In the ECU’s view it was legitimate to discuss JK Rowling, because she featured in the interviewee’s book (a fact reflected in Mr Sutcliffe’s question).Β  As to comparing her case with others, the ECU noted that Mr Sutcliffe did so in the context of distinguishing between expressing opinions (as JK Rowling had done) and committing criminal acts, and considered that this was neither harmful nor offensive.Β 

The EU agreed, however, that Mr Sutcliffe’s reference to a β€œvery unpopular opinion” was potentially misleading because, while it had clearly proved objectionable to some, there was no conclusive evidence that the objectors represented a majority.

Before the complaint reached the ECU, however, Mr Sutcliffe had appeared on Radio 4’s Feedback and acknowledged that he should have acknowledged that many people shared the view expressed by JK Rowling, and that he should have reflected that view.Β  In the ECU’s judgement this was sufficient to resolve the issues of accuracy and impartiality raised by the complaint.
Resolved