“This article was ill-informed and wrong. It did not, in any way, reflect the views of the Express. It should never have been written and was very quickly removed.
“We unconditionally apologise, both for the article itself and any offence, understandably, caused. The journalist who wrote the piece was immediately suspended.”
So that’s ok then.
The Express had published a piece under the headline “Liverpool must take serious action after Roma violence or risk further trouble”. It included the line: “Why does trouble seem to follow them (Liverpool fans) like bees round a honey pot?”
James Evelegh, Editor of InPublishing, leaps in with trenchant comments – most welcome in a largely anodyne media commentariat - in his weekly blog today.
“When writing your story about LFC fans, check your facts, steer well clear of stereotypes, and avoid unnecessary references to Heysel and Hillsborough. If you do mention them, then make sure you know the difference between the two,” he says
“As the first grumblings started to be heard from the Mersey, the new management team leapt into action with a fulsome grovel; it disowned the article completely, apologised unconditionally, announced the suspension of the ‘freelance’ (that’s handy) journalist involved, and announced an immediate inquiry. Textbook.”
That suspended journalist is not some fresh-out-of-college digital fodder but experienced, and before this respected, newshound Colin Mafham. He’s been around the block a bit – I briefly worked with him 30 years ago on Today – and must have written literally millions of words for the nationals.
Search ‘Colin Mafham’ on Twitter and you can see that full social media invective unfolding in front of you and have a look at the Liverpool Echo for a more considered response.
I was reminded of an InPublishing column headlined ‘There but for the grace of God…’ by ‘Mr Magazines’ (my epithet) David Hepworth who wrote about how the caption ‘token attractive woman’ has appeared in a cycling magazine (below).
He wrote: The bit of the editor’s statement that caught my attention was what came next: “In the rush to get the magazine finished, it was missed by other members of the team.”
Now, like anyone who’s done time as a galley slave in the production department of a magazine, I’ve known some very close calls in my time. Many’s the pull-quote saying, “some old bollocks here” that was only spotted at the last moment. It is axiomatic that the tone editorial professionals employ with each other will not be the same as that they would use to address the readers with. I’ve seen captions on pictures of lambs in healthy eating magazines that read “yum!” and left-to-rights that have been done with incomplete information where one of the figures is referred to as, “fat bloke – ask Terry”.
I can take all that. That’s the rough and tumble of production. What I can’t take is the editor blaming "other members of the team" for this particular cock-up. You simply can’t do that.
Indeed, you can’t do that. And while ‘suspended’ Colin Mafham is contemplating life without his weekly cheque from the Express what of the people who were supposed to be in charge? Someone was responsible for reading this stuff before it went out and someone pressed the button to publish.
And what about the sports editor, or indeed editor? Like many an editor before me I have stood up and been counted for something someone else did on my watch – I remember one run-in about coverage of a National Front candidates in local elections.
The reporter could probably have phrased the story better. I didn’t see it before it went out and nobody showed it to me so it was my fault.
That’s what the job is all about.