UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: John Nicolson

  • John Nicolson – 2023 Speech on Channel 4

    John Nicolson – 2023 Speech on Channel 4

    The speech made by John Nicolson, the SNP MP for Ochil and South Perthshire and the party’s spokesperson on culture, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2023.

    John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)

    Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

    I congratulate the Secretary of State, but I heard her refer to a previous Administration. There is no new Administration, just the same old Tory Administration. This is the second time I have sat on these Benches to listen to a Conservative Secretary of State reverse their predecessor’s damaging proposal to privatise Channel 4.

    Channel 4 is a flourishing, much-loved public institution that is making record profits and offers fearless journalism. The Secretary of State says her decision is based on evidence, which is a good call, but evidence, rather than any personal agenda, should surely have been the guiding principle from the get-go. For those who are not aware, Channel 4 receives no public funds. Can I try again: how much public money went into this Government’s aborted attempt at privatisation?

    Michelle Donelan

    We have already put that amount on the public record. As the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said, the amount is just shy of £2 million, but that also covers the general sustainability work that led to the package we announced today.

  • John Nicolson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    John Nicolson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Nicolson on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what steps she is taking to ensure that reductions in the wholesale price of energy are passed on to consumers.

    Amber Rudd

    Average domestic gas prices fell by £37 during 2015, and all six major suppliers have announced a further reduction in their tariffs in recent months. This is a good start, but the Government expects all suppliers to pass on reductions in the costs of supplying energy to consumers. I have met all the major energy suppliers in recent months to make that point clear.

    The Competition and Markets Authority are nearing the end of their enquiry into the energy markets, and I look forward to their conclusions. I am determined to do whatever it takes to ensure markets work well for consumers.

  • John Nicolson – 2022 Statement on Privilege Debate Concerning His Behaviour

    John Nicolson – 2022 Statement on Privilege Debate Concerning His Behaviour

    The statement made by John Nicolson, the SNP MP for Ochil and South Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2022.

    At the heart of this issue, I believe, is accountability. What should happen to Members who break the rules, and how open should our procedures be? What should the public be allowed to know?

    Let me say at the outset that I am very sorry that the Speaker feels that my revealing his decision not to have a debate in the House about our Committee’s report has put him in a bad light with the public. That was never my intention. My intention—[Interruption.] If Members allow me to develop my speech, they will hear my points. My intention was merely to let the public know what had been decided.

    I am accused of breaking a rule myself, and I would like to explain the circumstances to the House. I am a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. We held a hearing with the then Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), at which she claimed that a Channel 4 reality series in which she had appeared some years ago had used actors pretending to be members of the public. She claimed that they had confessed this to her. A member of the production team who lived on the estate concerned—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed my opening remarks, but it is quite clear that this is not about the actions of any other Member. It is not about what happened in the Committee with any other right hon. Member. It is about the motion before us.

    John Nicolson

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me say that there was considerable press interest in our Committee’s work, and I decided that we should send a copy of the report to the Speaker. I thought that time might be set aside for a debate about referring it to the Committee of Privileges. However, the Speaker wrote back to me saying that he did not believe the case met the threshold for a debate. I recorded a video summarising the Speaker’s decision, and I tweeted it. I offered no comment about the Speaker, nor did I criticise him. There was considerable public interest, and I soon discovered that the Speaker was angry. He believed that I should not have reported his decision. Last Wednesday, he told me in the House that he thought I had not summarised him accurately, and that I should not have reported him at all. It was not my intention in any way to summarise him inaccurately.

    Before I was elected to the House, I was a journalist—a reporter for “Newsnight”, among other current affairs shows. I believe in open democracy, but I also believe in maintaining agreed confidentiality. It did not cross my mind that revealing the Speaker’s decision on this was a breach of privilege. After all, what was I to say if journalists asked me whether I had written to the Speaker? Was I to say, “Yes”? If they asked me, “Has the Speaker responded? Has the Speaker given a ruling?”, was I then to say, “I’m afraid I can’t tell you”? I did not consider that I had broken any confidence or betrayed any trust. I did not imagine that the Speaker’s decision on a matter of importance to my constituents could not be revealed. Moreover, I believe that I summarised the Speaker fairly, but I am in the unfortunate position of finding myself unable to prove that, because in order to do so I would have to release the Speaker’s letter to me in its entirety—something which, as we have established, the Speaker does not believe I should do.

    There has been a suggestion that I printed only half the letter. That is not the case. The Speaker’s letter to me came as a letter through the post. There was no need for me to print it, nor did I publish it, nor did I show its contents to the camera, nor did I leak it to others. I was very open in the way I talked about it, which I hope shows that I did not think I was behaving improperly. There has also been some suggestion that the Select Committee did not wish to see this matter proceed to a privileges debate. That, too, is not the case. The Committee decided not to refer the Member concerned because she was no longer a Cabinet Minister, but the Committee left open the option for others to do so. Indeed, some Committee members expected that to happen. I agreed with the findings of the Committee, which were unanimous and cross-party.

    The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who wrote to the Speaker asking for this debate, has just spoken again. I have never met the right hon. Member or spoken to him here, although I may have interviewed him in the past. He is not a member of the Select Committee, and he has previously championed free speech.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. We really are not here to discuss the matters surrounding the Committee itself. The hon. Gentleman needs to stick to what is in the motion.

    John Nicolson

    May I just say this, Madam Deputy Speaker? I spoke to the Chair and the Clerk of the Committee today. I gave them exactly the words that I intended to use, and obtained their permission to use the words that I have just repeated.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. It is up to me to make the final decision. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Those people do not give the hon. Gentleman permission; I do.

    John Nicolson

    The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden spoke last Wednesday following the Speaker’s remarks from the Chair, and he laid into me with some vigour, using what appeared to be a pre-prepared speech. He was especially exercised by what he saw as my breach of parliamentary etiquette. It is worth me pointing out in that context that he did not contact me to inform me that he planned to speak about me, which as we all know is the convention. I was not afforded the opportunity to reply last Wednesday, but before moving on to other business the Speaker concluded:

    “I am going to leave it there for today”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 292.]

    I therefore assumed that the matter had been laid to rest. However, the right hon. Member then took to Twitter to pursue his criticism of me, complete with a video of his speech.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to be criticising the right hon. Gentleman who moved the motion. He can speak to the motion, not outside it, so can we just stick to the matter in hand?

    John Nicolson

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—

    Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) rose—

    John Nicolson

    I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

    Simon Hoare

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who on a personal level I like. Can I just give him some friendly advice? Put the spade down.

    John Nicolson

    People are watching this, and I am pleased that they are. I think they will draw conclusions, having heard both sides of the argument.

    Pete Wishart

    I have been in this House for 21 years, and as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been a member of the House of Commons Commission for something like four years. I had absolutely no idea that we could not reveal that we had had correspondence with the Speaker or summarise what it was. How on earth was my hon. Friend supposed to know that, when I, with my 21 years in this House and my service on the Commission, did not know it? All of this seems to be, at best, some sort of means for retribution and, at worst, institutional bullying, because that is what it is starting to feel like right now.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. Interventions can be made, but they should be brief. I would also remind hon. and right hon. Members that if the House decides to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges, these sorts of arguments can be made there. This debate is on the simple matter of the motion. Other arguments can be made to the Committee if the House decides it wants the matter to go to the Committee.

    John Nicolson

    I know that the Speaker has been on the receiving end of often unpleasant comments from the public since I revealed his decision. That was never my intention. I did not use his name, I did not link to him and I did not post contacts for him. I am very sorry that a pile-on has ensued. I have friends across the House, and I believe in vigorous but fair debate. I have no time for abusive behaviour; I do not engage in it and I deplore it.

    I am advised that I breached a parliamentary rule by referring to the Speaker’s letter, but as I have explained, I did not knowingly do so. I would never reveal a confidence. I did not believe that the Speaker’s decision on a parliamentary matter was a secret. Indeed—this is perhaps not a matter for today—should there not be a distinction between correspondence containing confidences and correspondence on policy decisions? Has every Member who has revealed a Speaker’s decision by letter found themselves the subject of a parliamentary privilege debate, as I am today? Although this convention appears to exist, is it not the very antithesis of open democracy? Many Members on both sides of the House have told me privately that they did not know this rule existed.

    Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)

    I should declare an interest as another Member who appeared in the very same reality show that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee discussed. He has not apologised to the Speaker. Does he not think that, having betrayed what was marked as private correspondence, which clearly and rightly aggrieved the Speaker, if he had given an apology at the time when it was raised by the Chair last week, he would not be in this position now? Why did he not do that? Would he not like to bring back at least some decorum by apologising profusely to the Speaker and the House now for the offence he has caused?

    John Nicolson

    The hon. Gentleman says the letter was marked “private”. I do not know how he knows what was on the letter. I have shown the letter to absolutely nobody. But since he challenges me, the letter was not marked “private”. If it had been, I would not have talked about it. It is a core belief of people in my former profession that we hold confidences and that we will go to prison rather than reveal our sources. The letter was not marked “private”. It was about a matter of policy on whether or not a debate could be held, and I did not think that it was confidential.

    Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)

    The hon. Member has said that he was aware that the Speaker had become very angry. As the Speaker serves all of us, and as this is all about decorum, is it not time that he apologised to the Speaker? Maybe that would resolve a lot of things.

    John Nicolson

    I want to answer that question honestly. I am slightly torn because, on the one hand, I am deeply sorry that the Speaker is upset. Those who know me will know that I do not ever conduct politics in a way that aims to be offensive, and I am truly sorry that the Speaker is upset. I am truly sorry that I have upset the Speaker, but it would be disingenuous of me to say that I knowingly revealed this. I could not have been more open by going on camera and discussing this. I clearly was not trying to hide it. If people in my profession—my former profession and this profession—want to pass things into the public domain in a sleekit or surreptitious way, they give them to journalists. I did not do that. I stood up and talked about the letter, not revealing its contents in detail but summarising it.

    This place often seems hard to understand for the general public, and its procedures can appear opaque. I suspect that most people will find it curious that the Member who misled the Select Committee was subject to no consequences but the Member who revealed that—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. The hon. Gentleman absolutely needs to withdraw that remark.

    John Nicolson

    I withdraw that remark. I, however, am subject to the current debate. I note that, over the years, these debates have been confined to people who have committed or been accused of committing some of the most egregious offences, but I have yet to meet a Member who thinks this falls into that category.

    I want to conclude by saying again that it was never my intention to insult the Speaker. I do not know him well but we have only ever had friendly exchanges when meeting. I bear him absolutely no ill will. I deplore any and all online abuse that he has suffered. Nobody, I imagine, is enjoying this debate—least of all me. I find interpersonal conflict stressful and unpleasant. I hope the House concludes that there was no malicious intent in anything that I did, and I apologise to the Speaker for breaching a House rule, but given the all-party nature of the Committee report I sought no party political advantage and I hope that Members here today will seek no party political advantage. My only motivation was to do what I always try to do, and that is to engage with the debate and to communicate my work here with constituents and with journalists as openly and fairly as I can.

  • John Nicolson – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    John Nicolson – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by John Nicolson, the SNP MP for Ochil and South Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 10 September 2022.

    I keep thinking of that final photo of the Queen, taken only this week as she welcomed the Prime Minister to Balmoral. It is the most poignant of images. She is standing by an open fire with a familiar no-nonsense hairdo, and she is wearing a comfortable kilt. But a closer examination of the familiar figure reveals that she is struggling to lift her head, her right hand looks badly bruised and she is leaning heavily on a stick. I suspect that she must have been feeling tired and sore, but she is wearing make-up and smiling a warm welcome. How brave that was and how dutiful. We look at the photo with affection and respect because it is Queen Elizabeth but also because, for so many of us, her bravery so close to the moment of her passing will remind us of all those we have loved and lost—all the mothers and grandmothers we have known and admired for their quiet, anonymous courage.

    Few of us knew the Queen personally, but we all felt somehow that we did, and there are recurring themes as the tributes pour in. She was a woman of great religious faith who did not fear death. She was capable of many quiet acts of sensitivity and compassion away from the public eye. She could be very funny, with a dry wit and a mischievous talent for mimicry, and she did not like folk who were pompous or overly grand—despite, I suspect, too often finding herself surrounded by them. She loved Scotland the most of any country and was at her happiest when driving around in the lashing rain at Balmoral, gently torturing urban Westminster politicians who arrived with city clothes and sometimes starched personalities.

    While no one imagined that the Queen was a political radical, those who talked to her privately report that she had moved with the times, whether on climate change, gender equality, LGBT rights or a recent decision to stop wearing fur. Though she was possibly—probably—not a passionate Scottish independence supporter, she seems to have enjoyed warm relations with recent First Ministers, who appear to have been as charmed by her as the most ardent Unionist. She loved, apparently, being called Elizabeth, Queen of Scots—perhaps recognising that the advice to take the title of Elizabeth II all those decades ago was not the most inclusive given to her.

    The Queen was among the last of the war-time generation. That gave her a special bond with politicians who had served: Heath and Healey, Callaghan and Jenkins. They were a generation who saw the devastation that war caused in our continent, and were committed to building a new, more united Europe. My much-loved mum, who died recently, was the Queen’s age and a passionate supporter of European integration, because she had known the horror of war and celebrated the peace that our generation perhaps appreciates too little. One of the most moving tributes to the Queen this week, as we all know, has come from the French President. We will miss her, and we will together celebrate her life over the coming days and weeks. May she rest in peace.

  • John Nicolson – 2022 Speech on Channel 4 Privatisation

    John Nicolson – 2022 Speech on Channel 4 Privatisation

    The speech made by John Nicolson, the SNP MP for Ochil and South Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 14 June 2022.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not expect the Secretary of State to leave quite so quickly.

    It is good to see so many unfamiliar faces on the Tory Back Benches—Members with a new-found interest in broadcasting—and also not just the current Conservative Select Committee Chair but two former Chairs. It is like being in one of those “Doctor Who” episodes with three Doctors all in one episode at the same time.

    Here we are again. With a grim familiarity, we are once again debating the future of Channel 4 as Opposition Members try to defend one of the country’s best-loved institutions from the culture warriors on the Conservative Front Bench. I do not believe that everybody in the DCMS Front-Bench team falls into that category: some are simply trying to keep their heads down until the chancer in No. 10 gets toppled, taking his fawning political acolytes with him. Channel 4 probably feels much the same.

    Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    John Nicolson

    Later—let me make some progress.

    Until then, we have little choice but to combat the collection of semi-arguments, half-heard bar-room prejudices, factual errors and outright disinformation that forms the basis of the Government’s case for privatising the channel. There is of course the never-ending irony that a Government pretending commitment to levelling up are making decisions that will jeopardise national and regional businesses in the production sector. Channel 4 spends more on nations and regions production than any other commercially funded broadcaster, and in 2021 dedicated 55% of its total content spend to content produced in the nations and regions. As we have heard, with a headquarters in Leeds and hubs in Glasgow, Bristol and Manchester, Channel 4 is a model levelling-up employer.

    So why sell this model levelling-up employer? Is it in financial peril? We know that it is not. Channel 4 currently generates £1 billion of gross value added for the UK economy, working with around 300 production companies a year. To be clear, the UK Government want to sell a healthy, successful company that, because of the way it was established, cannot keep its profits. It must and does reinvest all revenue made back into the business—a dream for the consumer. If only the privatised utilities had been set up on that model, how much better off we would all be.

    The Government’s excuse to attack Channel 4, this jewel in the broadcasting crown, is that they want to raise money to reinvest in the independent production sector. That is precisely what Channel 4 does with its profits at the moment. It is entirely nonsensical. All that the Government wheeze will do is put investment and jobs in jeopardy. Do they care? Does the absent Secretary of State have some great insight into the sector that lesser mortals, including those who run the company and oppose her, do not?

    We all know the Secretary of State’s history of gaffes and confusions, but on Channel 4 she has surely surpassed herself. Millions of views of her faux pas on YouTube do not make her a broadcasting expert. The House will know that she did not know how Channel 4 was funded when she appeared before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I sit. She thought it was publicly funded, rather than funded by advertising. Her confusion was excruciatingly laid bare on camera when a Conservative member of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), had to explain Channel 4’s funding model to her.

    Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) indicated dissent.

    John Nicolson

    The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Feel free to intervene, rather than groan in agony. Apparently he cannot marshal the words to match his facial expressions.

    Millions of Channel 4 viewers will have noticed the adverts on Channel 4, but the Secretary of State apparently has not, yet she presumes to pontificate on Channel 4 while junior Ministers breathlessly wait. It is like watching an unbenevolent Mr Dick from Charles Dickens fly his kite. [Interruption.] It is a literary reference. People may laugh at the clips, but such wilful ignorance debases the policy-making process. When she is misunderstanding the most fundamental part of her brief, but still thinks it appropriate to patronise the Channel 4 management and staff, it is painful to witness. Nor was that a one-off; the Secretary of State thought that Channel 5, as has already been quoted, had been privatised. She told Iain Dale of LBC that it was, citing the privatisation of Channel 5 as a model for Channel 4 privatisation. She said that it was privatised

    “three years ago, five years ago maybe”

    when she did that particular interview. There was only one problem: Channel 5 was never privatised. It was another excruciating on-air exhibition of ignorance.

    The Secretary of State may not know much about the sector, but does she at least have the public on her side as the Government lunge at Channel 4? Apparently not, although she does not seem to know it. Let us look at the consultation she set up to assess public opinion on the proposed privatisation. At a November DCMS Committee session, the Secretary of State said:

    “what is the point of having a consultation that 60,000 people respond to if I had already made my mind up what I was going to do with Channel 4? That would be an abuse, I think, and a waste of money and effort on behalf of a large number of civil servants. I would really like to see what those 60,000 responses say first.”

    The message was clear: she would listen to the public, those who watch and love the channel.

    People did respond to the Government when asked for their view. As the Secretary of State said, 60,000 responded in an impressive display of public engagement. What did the figures show after they were analysed? Those figures, which the Secretary of State told us it would be an abuse to ignore, were interesting. Some 96% of the public were against Channel 4 privatisation, although in yet another moment of tragicomedy, the Secretary of State announced to the Select Committee at her latest appearance that 96% of the public were in favour of privatisation.

    Alun Cairns

    I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating no change for Channel 4, but if he is, how will he accommodate the fall in advertising income and its impact on the spend in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions?

    John Nicolson

    As other hon. Members have already explained, Channel 4 is making record profits. Since the system seems to be working so well, I do not see the point of breaking it.

    Alun Cairns

    It is spending less.

    John Nicolson

    It is making plenty of programmes. In fact, the Secretary of State already said that so many production companies are being successful that they cannot keep up with the current demands. Conservative Members need to marshal their arguments and work out which they are advocating.

    Once again, so we are all clear: 96% of the public in the Government’s own consultation process, which the Secretary of State said it would be an abuse to ignore, said that they opposed Channel 4 privatisation—so much for respecting the public will. It appears that the public matter as little as industry experts.

    Let us turn to one of the main arguments put forward for the privatisation of Channel 4. The Secretary of State often says that she wants it to be able to compete with

    “streaming giants such as Netflix and Amazon”.

    She may have noticed that they do not have war correspondents, or at least that those who do appear are actors in movies, not journalists dealing with breaking news. The comparison is far from ideal, but let us briefly explore it anyway.

    Amazon Prime is owned by a trillion-dollar company that uses its video streaming end as a loss leader. Unlike Channel 4, it does not make a profit, so it is far from a role model. What about Netflix, the other role model that the Secretary of State has in mind for a privatised Channel 4? That is not going so well either. It has racked up billions of dollars of debt and its share price has fallen by more than 70% in the last six months, which demonstrates the volatility of the market.

    Unlike the Secretary of State’s chosen examples, Channel 4 is a commercial success that runs a profit, not a loss. Its real competitors are the current UK public service broadcasters such as the BBC and ITV. We all know that the future is digital and here Channel 4 leads the UK. We all know that linear numbers are down, but it is in a strong position to benefit from that trend as it is the UK’s biggest free streaming service, despite having a considerably smaller budget than the BBC. Also, of course, because it is publicly owned, it can reinvest extra revenue.

    What if the nightmare happened and the Secretary of State got her way? Some on the Tory Benches—I suspect not those invited to participate in this debate—may be swithering and wondering what the future of Channel 4 will hold. They might consider that the Secretary of State, however dodgy her grasp of facts and of the issue, has promised that Channel 4 will remain a public service broadcaster. They might think, “We will have sold off another piece of the family silver, but at least we can all muddle through and things might not change that much.”

    Well, not so fast: although the Secretary of State did promise that, whatever fate befalls Channel 4, it would always remain a public service broadcaster free at the point of use, that undertaking fell apart somewhat under cross-examination at the Select Committee. We discovered that Channel 4’s buyer need only keep it as a public service broadcaster for 10 years. The Secretary of State has now made it clear that the Government will have no locus over the broadcaster once that period is over. When asked if the owners would have to consult the Department after 10 years, the Secretary of State said:

    “No, it will be privately owned. It will be up to owners.”

    So I say to Tory Back Benchers who are uncertain about what to do, if the new owners want to make Channel 4 a streaming service, they can. If they would like to ditch the award-winning “Channel 4 News” with its new chief anchor Krishnan Guru-Murthy, it is up to them. The Secretary of State may be too scared to go into the studio to face him about Channel 4 privatisation, but do those Tory Back Benchers not want him and the news channel to be around to tackle the next Labour Prime Minister? Short-termism may come back to bite them. Say goodbye to “Unreported World”, which sends intrepid correspondents off to tackle unreported stories in some of the world’s most dangerous hotspots. They are astonishingly brave, but the show is expensive to make. Would a privatised company make it? No one at the channel thinks so.

    The new owner could break up the company and sell it off. They could move it out of the UK. It is up to them entirely. The Secretary of State may argue that that is unlikely or would not make commercial sense, but do you really trust her judgment? Do you think she understands the detail? Will she even be around once this Prime Minister is gone? Who knows—it doesn’t really matter. What is important is that, once this 10-year period is over, the Government will have absolutely no power; it will be too late.

    Reasoned argument has been tried and tested over Channel 4 privatisation. The arguments for privatisation never stack up. As a previous Secretary of State told me:

    “too expensive, too unpopular, and too little in return.”

    That Secretary of State had listened to the experts. This one does not seem to want to listen to the experts.

    With an 80-plus seat majority, this ultimately, as we all know, will be up to Tory Back Benchers. Those of you not on the Government payroll do not much like your leader—we saw that and we saw how you voted. That we know and you often tell me you do not really believe in the culture wars—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. The hon. Gentleman is not really addressing the Chair when he says “You”. He means “They,” not “You.”

    John Nicolson

    I beg your pardon. I try to avoid that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Now is the chance for Conservative Back Benchers to join us on this side of the House in the mainstream. Please stand up for a national treasure.