On the Guardian’s decision to run an Opinion piece by Kelvin MacKenzie
|
Version 0 of 1. Many relatives and friends of the 96 people who died at the Hillsborough stadium nearly 26 years ago were deeply shocked when Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun, was commissioned to write an Opinion article in the Guardian. The piece wasn’t about the tragedy but was part of a series on immigration, published on 24 March, in which he confessed – in a way that was striking for those who read his paper during his 12 years as editor – that he had changed his mind, immigration was good and that, during his editorship, “I am sure minorities – and even majorities – were maligned”. However, it wasn’t the subject but the idea that we would commission him at all, and might even have possibly taken him on staff – we haven’t – that angered the 22 complainants. Many of the complaints contain heart-rending accounts of family and friends of the victims, and express exceptionally strong views about MacKenzie, whose newspaper published an article four days after the disaster headlined “The Truth” making a series of allegations about fans’ conduct on the day, which have been utterly discredited. The Guardian was neither endorsing nor adopting MacKenzie, his past or his views The sister of one victim wrote: “I am currently and have been attending the Hillsborough inquests since they began back in March of last year. I have spent 26 years defending my brother, [and] the other 95 victims and survivors and fighting for the truth and justice. As I said in my pen portrait [personal statements read out at the inquest currently being held] on 9 April 2014: “I don’t live, I exist. I exist for one reason and one reason only … to ensure my brother did not die a lie. My parents were deprived of their right of ever finding out ‘the truth’ of how or why their son died. “What I find so disappointing is the fact that you have spent a lot of time and money in ensuring the current inquests are being reported, by one of the most highly respected journalists I have ever met. David Conn is respected by so many of us families and survivors too. So many relatives and survivors had so much respect for your paper.” Conn, a Guardian writer, has written extensively about Hillsborough and is covering the inquest. Another reader wrote: “It is with profound regret and utter dismay that I see you have given space to Kelvin MacKenzie, who was responsible for printing one of the most hurtful, disgusting and outrageous editions of any British newspaper that there has ever been. I refer of course to the edition of the Sun and ‘The Truth’ article of April 1989. It has long since been established that what the paper reported as facts, were utter rubbish. “The reputation of the Guardian has been tarnished by your willingness to accept his article. All I can do is register my protest and read an alternative paper.” Mackenzie was the editor of the Sun when it sold more than 4m copies and was arguably at its most influential in Thatcherite Britain. The stories it ran set the tone for a great deal of political debate, but also reinforced as well as reflected British attitudes at a time when, as MacKenzie himself concedes, minorities were maligned in the paper. The Sun was as much a part of the story of those times as chronicler of them The Sun was as much a part of the story of those times as chronicler of them. That’s why the Guardian’s Opinion editors thought that – as part of a set of articles about immigration – his views, and especially the explanation of his change of heart, were worth publishing. The Guardian was neither endorsing nor adopting MacKenzie, his past or his views, as with so many other contributors. As ever, the readers would decide what to make of them. I tried to explain this view to many readers but many felt I still didn’t get it. “If you publish that [man] again, I will exercise my own ‘freedom of expression’ and orchestrate a campaign entitled ‘Don’t buy the Guardian’,” wrote one. My journalistic instincts tell me it is wrong to ban MacKenzie, not least because readers wouldn’t have read his admission that the Sun maligned minorities. But what I realised on re-reading the emails is that this may appear an indulgent, abstract view of the world to those whose lives were shattered by the deaths at Hillsborough and who have lived with it every day since. We acknowledge that. • Comments on this article will remain off |