The Guardian Revisits Their Error

The readers' editor on ... a complaint about a controversial correction

Ian Mayes, Monday December 12, 2005, The Guardian

It is with considerable reluctance that I return to the subject of the Guardian and Noam Chomsky and one of the most difficult complaints I have had to deal with in my eight years as readers' editor of the paper. I do so because the long correction which I and those directly involved certainly thought at the time had fairly resolved the matter, is itself now being called into question by others.

. . .

I want to emphasise the point that my task was to investigate a complaint in the light of the specific contents of one article in the Guardian and to consider material put before me by the complainant and the journalists concerned.

I return to my terms of reference, which can be found on the Guardian website. In particular, I refer to the penultimate clause which reads: "The readers' editor can refer to the external ombudsman any substantial grievances, or matters whereby the Guardian's journalistic integrity has been called into question."

There is a temporary difficulty here in that the position of external ombudsman is vacant, although steps are being taken by the Scott Trust, the owner of the Guardian, to fill it as a matter of urgency. I believe that it is the external ombudsman who should review my conduct of the inquiry leading to the publication of the correction to Emma Brockes's interview if those now dissatisfied with my resolution of the matter wish to pursue it.

One of the questions that the Aaronovitch-Wheen-Kamm letter to me raises, which I would ask the external ombudsman to consider, is that of the availability of legal advice or opinion on what I was proposing to publish in the paper.

The suggestion seems to be that this impinges upon and detracts from my independence. I find that extraordinary: everything published is subject to the law of the land. The real problem is that a correction intended to resolve a complaint by dealing with specific points in one article has raised an extraordinary storm of opposing passions.