Yesterday, I raged against students at Plymouth university who are banning the sale in their campus shop of the Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express (plus their Sunday equivalents).
Jonathan Heawood, founder of the press regulator, Impress, responded by asking me, in a tweet: “how should students pursue truth” with the publishers of those newspapers?
It was retweeted by Brian Cathcart, one of the founders of Hacked Off, the group that represents the victims of press misbehaviour.
I think, well I hope, that both men are against the banning of newspapers. But the question they ask of me is fair. Although, as they surely know, there is no easy, one-sentence answer.
First off, students are no different from all citizens. They have a right to air their views, to shout, to protest, to complain. They can pass motions condemning the editorial content of newspapers.
The National Union of Students (NUS) could launch a nationwide campaign across UK universities in order to highlight the anti-immigrant, anti-EU, racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic agendas of newspapers.
Aside from campus meetings, they are at liberty to use all the available social media tools to further their cause. This is the great advantage of the digital age: unmediated platforms in which to argue against the mainstream press agenda.
Given the size and reach of the NUS it is in a perfect position to publicise a case against the newspapers carrying hateful editorial messages.
And students are quite within their rights to urge people not to buy such papers. It would still allow people to exercise their free will.
They can also, again like other citizens, lobby their MPs - at surgeries, by email, whatever - to point up editorial content that strikes them as egregiously unfair and likely to incite hatred. Politicians require ammunition to attack papers.
And then, of course, there is the editors’ code of practice to consult, especially the clauses on accuracy and discrimination.
Admittedly, there are twin problems in complaining to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso): first, the difficulty of mounting a third-party case; and secondly, acting on behalf of groups of people. But, in the right circumstances, the effort may not be wasted.
Pressure applied on the regulator to deal more equably with complaints on behalf of marginalised groups could prove valuable.
In addition, it might be productive for students who are outraged by the treatment of minorities to make a constructive response to yesterday’s announcement of a code consultation.
All of this may sound limp when compared to the grand (and misguided) gesture of banning papers. It is long term rather than short term. It demands effort, not ranting from a microphone and staging a quick vote.
Once upon a time, in those pre-digital days of hot metal, the national press reigned supreme. It made propaganda without any comeback. Now it doesn’t have a monopoly.
If students, anyone, wants to combat what the Mail, Express and Sun say they should regard counter publicity as the best antidote to the poison they believe the newspapers are guilty of spreading.
As someone who has spent the best part of 24 years as a commentator on the press, during which I have criticised countless examples of distortion, deceit and disgraceful conduct, I know there is no silver bullet.
What I also know is that the circulations of all three newspapers have declined dramatically over that period, as has their influence. The Express is now irrelevant. I accept that the Mail and Sun are not.
But they will not be defeated by actions that smack of censorship. They will not be brought to heel by overly restrictive regulation. Beat them instead at their own game. Take every opportunity to publicise the falsity of their messages.
