The issue is Not his views. I may profoundly disagree with most of his views, but I will defend his right to express them in a free society. The issue is that in his interviews he is increasingly coming across as unhinged, not rational, and showing signs of serious mental health issues. That can happen to campaigners on all sides of debates. People believe in causes so absolutely, and encounter such hostility that they become quite disturbed, irrational and show signs of a mental health crisis.
The media in the past would avoid covering some people here they showed increasing evidence of psychological disturbance, or alcoholism, or something that meant they lacked normal self-control - and were often not able to handle media exposure.
The media in the past would avoid covering some people here they showed increasing evidence of psychological disturbance, or alcoholism, or something that meant they lacked normal self-control - and were often not able to handle media exposure.
British politician Lord George-Brown, one-time British Foreign Secretary, was an extreme alcoholic. The media increasingly did not cover him as he was often not in control, unaware of what he was saying, and often could not cope with the pressures of coverage. Editors chose not to exploit a sick man for headlines.
The media struggled in knowing how cover Lib-Dem leader Charles Kennedy. Kennedy was brilliant, but a raging alcoholic. They did not know how to cover someone who was simultaneously leader of a party and in a dangerous state mentally and physically due to his alcoholism.
In Ireland, journalists struggled with covering Noel Browne in his latter years, as his worst characteristics (paranoia, a determination to get revenge, the breakdown in coverage) overwhelmed his many best characteristics. In 1990, furious that Labour had picked Mary Robinson and not him to become its presidential candidate, he began a vitriolic campaign against Robinson in press releases and letters to the editor. Much of what his said was provably untrue and heavily defamatory so could not be published. Journalists decided not to cover his behaviour at all - concluding rightly that he was not mentally well and covering it could make his situation worse.
I can think of a prominent journalist turned right wing campaigner who increasingly demonstrated serious mental health issues - so much so that their own family pleaded with them to get treatment. The media stopped covering that person. They were not being censored for the their views, as others with those views were being covered. It was that pretty much everyone realised that individual was not mentally OK, and needed psychological help, not press exposure.
I have listened to a few of Graham's interviews. I disagreed with much of what he said, but that is not the issue. I would be perfectly OK hearing someone else saying those things, and being challenged on them. However Graham Linehan is clearly not mentally well (I say this as someone with my own mental health issues). He has suffered the loss of his own wife, family and career over his behaviour, and both sides on the issues he pushes can be vicious and brutal. He appears to be in a bad psychological state. He clearly is not able to handle the stress.
As such he needs help, not media exposure or more attacks. The real fear is that in his vulnerable state he may end up driven to the ultimate act many with mental health issues try when they feel they cannot cope any more.
⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.
