BigShinyThing

Our friend Danny loves film, so it was only natural that he ended up writing a column in Sight and Sound magazine. And being a film lover, it’s not surprising that Danny also has an opinion about the British Film Institute (BFI), Sight and Sound’s publisher. What he didn’t expect was that a jokey comment about BFI director Amanda Nevill on his personal blog would see him fired by the magazine, via the following email from S&S editor Nick James:

Dear Danny

I have some not good news for you, so I’ll get straight to business.

Since your call for Amanda to resign – something I’m sure you know she took very personally – your column, fine as it is, has become more trouble to me than it’s worth. To have someone who is on very public record of having called for her head as a regular contributor to S&S makes it look like we tacitly agree with you. We can’t do that.

The upshot is that we will pay you for the latest instalment, though it will not appear, and I’m afraid that will be that.

I’ll save any further obsequies for when I next see you.

Nick

Danny is understandably pissed off. We encourage you, dear readers, especially any of you who are BFI members — or Sight and Sound readers — to write to the magazine and express your disappointment with this knee-jerk over-reaction. It might be a bit late for them to try to kiss and make up with Danny, but at least an apology would seem in order. Followed by a bit of clarification of Sight and Sound’s willingness to fire a contributor on the basis of nothing more than a comedic posting on a site totally unconnected with the BFI. Surely a little thin-skinned? And paranoid.

Earlier this year, venerable medical journal The Lancet was part of an action which shamed its publisher, Reed Elsevier, into ending its long association with Arms Fairs. The Lancet didn’t hold back from criticising its own publisher and using the magazine as a platform. Sight and Sound could do to look and learn.

UPDATE: Danny’s got his job back! He blogs:

Yesterday I was offered my column in Sight and Sound back. Nick James wrote:

Dear Danny

I’m glad to say that the position apropos your column has changed. I did over-react on this issue, but I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasoning.

Carefully argued criticism of the BFI is one thing, one-line uncontextualised personal sniping is another. It is the latter that is alien to Sight & Sound’s ethos, and that’s why we felt there was a problem of association.

However, you didn’t write the one-liner in Sight & Sound, and I agree that the issue of freedom of speech is too important to be affected by a one-line jibe, so I’m happy to offer you your column back, should you decide to accept it, along with a personal apology from me for the anxiety caused.

Nick

I won’t say much else except that the future of the BFI is indeed a matter for careful and serious, not to mention open and honest, argument.

Thank you to everyone who offered support, both publicly and privately, not just for me, but for S&S’s editorial integrity. Sight and Sound’s a great magazine and I’m delighted to still be writing for it.

Thank god for that. Now we don’t have to cancel our subscription.