Far more of you complained about Charlotte Raven’s column on June 26 than about any single article that has appeared in the paper or on our website since I became readers’ editor more than three and a half years ago, discounting only a couple of things that were the targets of organised lobbies.
There was nothing organised about this. The emails, letters and telephone calls – as those on the receiving end will tell you – represented a surge of genuine anger and dismay, much of it directed at the Guardian for allowing the column to appear.
What caused such a furore? The column under the heading “Why the Bulger mourning marathon sickens me” commented on reaction in Liverpool to the news that the two killers of James Bulger were to be released. In particular it questioned the motivation and behaviour of James’s mother, Denise Fergus, and those around her.
“If there were any justice, the lynch mob surrounding [her] would be condemned to rot in Kirby until such time as society was satisfied that they were no longer a threat.” The fact that Kirkby was misspelt in the column confirmed the view that many of you formed – such are the sensitivities – that here was an attack from an unsympathetic outsider who knew nothing of Liverpool and nothing of its culture. There followed remarks which had a particularly incendiary effect, about “Scouse justice” and “the Scousers’ propensity to linger over every misfortune”. “Liverpool’s talent for nursing resentments ensured that it would feel, eight years on, just as enraged about Bulger’s murder as it was the first moment it heard.”
Racist was the word that many of you used to underline the degree of offence you felt at what one person called “regional xenophobia”. One letter, typical of a great many, said: “I am not a Scouser… I am also totally opposed to the lynch mob mentality… However, to insult the whole population of a British city by such outrageous stereo-typing… is grossly offensive.” Another reader wrote: “Maybe legally her opinions aren’t racist, but morally they are just as bad and you are promulgating racist attitudes [in publishing them].”
Well over 200 complaints were registered, many from people upset at what they saw as, to put it at its mildest, the insensitivity of the attack on Denise Fergus. Practically all complaints objected in the strongest terms to the remarks about Liverpool.
I have read, at the time of writing, 77 of your letters. Four of those broadly supported Charlotte Raven. The other 74 were vehemently against, almost half of them specifically criticising the Guardian for publishing the column. “Why didn’t [you] exercise the kind of standards you frequently request from others? Or is it that you are just another collection of journalistic hypocrites?” In the couple of days after publication the Guardian office in Manchester received about 30 calls. The features desk in London received “a barrage of phone calls” too. All the telephone callers were expressing disapproval.
It quickly became clear to me that many people, and not just journalists, working for the Guardian would also like an opportunity to express their opinion, so I posted three questions on the electronic noticeboard. Is the article fair to James Bulger’s mother? Is the article fair to the people of Liverpool in general? Was the Guardian right or wrong to publish the article as it stands?
A total of 86 people had replied by midday on Thursday. Thirteen of them supported not only Ms Raven’s right to say what she said but, with some qualification, the sentiments she expressed; 42 thought the piece was unfair to Denise Fergus, 46 thought it was fair in the sense that it was perfectly legitimate to criticise her; 80 thought it unfair to Liverpool, 6 thought it was fair comment; 51 believed the Guardian should not have published the piece as it stood, 35 thought it was right to publish. Several people, non-journalists, as it happened, recorded a sense of shame in being associated with the paper at this moment. Many felt that an interesting theme with reference to Denise Fergus had been completely undermined by what one called “the ludicrously unfair comments” about Liverpool. Charlotte Raven has seen much of the correspondence and is replying to as many letters as possible.
The editor of the Guardian points out that the paper employs columnists to say what they think. “For what it’s worth, I thought some of what Charlotte had to say about the forces agitating around James Bulger’s mother had some merit. I personally thought her broad-brush attack on Scousers was – even allowing for polemical effect – silly.” He was loath to edit out opinions he did not agree with.
In my judgment the column should not have appeared.
