I speak of course of the Sun's 'Truth' article following the Hillsborough disaster, a disgraceful, unsubstantiated, hate-filled piece of drivel that piled on the hurt to families still feeling the raw pain of losing their loved ones in a disaster just days before.
The article rightly led to a boycott of the newspaper, which is still observed by thousands on Merseyside.
In 2004 the newspaper apologised for "the most terrible mistake" in its history.
MacKenzie, however, stands by his bile, stating at a business lunch in 2006: "I wasn't sorry then and I'm not sorry now because we told the truth."
Note the use of "we". And yet the story from The History of the Sun (Peter Chippendale and Chris Horrie) paints a very different picture:
As MacKenzie's layout was seen by more and more people, a collective shudder ran through the office [but] MacKenzie's dominance was so total there was nobody left in the organisation who could rein him in except Murdoch. [Everyone] seemed paralysed, "looking like rabbits in the headlights", as one hack described them. The error staring them in the face was too glaring. It obviously wasn't a silly mistake; nor was it a simple oversight. Nobody really had any comment on it, they just took one look and went away shaking their heads in wonder at the enormity of it. It was a "classic smear".
Amazingly this scummy man's career continues, as does his obvious hatred for Liverpool, Merseyside and Scousers.
Not only does the twisted oaf continue to write for the Sun, he is somehow regularly given air time on TV and radio.
A simple google search reveals his bent views are continuing to offend so I wouldn't expect anyone, in jest or otherwise, to suggest he is worthy of again holding the title of editor of a national newspaper again.
So imagine my surprise when this disgrace to the profession of journalism is mentioned in an article about the current editor of the Sun, an article which has the penultimate sentence: "Bring back Kelvin MacKenzie".
What publication would publish such a notion? The Journalist - The National Union of Journalists magazine which goes out to all members.
You couldn't make it up.
This is the man who once said: “When I published those stories, they were not lies. They were great stories that later turned out to be untrue - and that is different. What am I supposed to feel ashamed about?”
Livid, I wrote to the editor of The Journalist. The reply? Well you couldn't make that up either...
--------------------------------------------------
The article in full from The Journalist, September/October 2009:WHAT'S WRONG with showbiz writers like the Sun's Dominic Mohan becoming editors of national newspapers? He follows people like John Blake, Piers Morgan and Andy Coulson in the move from editing the Bizarre column to the paper itself.
Aside from the hardly needed confirmation of the Sun's devotion to mindless celebrity, there are three things wrong:
First is the way their journalism is produced: the celebrity industry is happily dependent on the whims of the stars and chicanery of their agents. Not a good model for news journalism.
Second is the fact that it makes the editor a celebrity. Showbiz columnists love to write about their own obsessively partying lives and to get themselves photographed looking all matey with the stars.
And third is the authority they wield with our rulers. Piers Morgan is constantly bragging about the access he enjoyed to Downing Street when Tony Blair would apparently drop whatever inconsequential matters he was engaged with to take his counsel.
I do not hold Prime Ministers in high regard but I do recognise they are busy people and I find the notion that they should have to give their coveted attention to these vain and prattling groupies rather unsettling, don't you?
Bring back Kelvin MacKenzie. He may be a boorish reactionary but his news values do at least relate to the real political world.
My email to The Journalist:
Reply from The Journalist:
Dear Editor,
I refer to the article in 'Gripe' on page 31 of your current issue with the headline 'Hey Prime Minister'.
While I take the point about showbiz reporters becoming editors of national newspapers signalling a sign of a slip in standards of journalism, I am gobsmacked by the last paragraph advocating the return of Kelvin MacKenzie to the role of editor at The Sun.
The article describes showbiz reporters' methods as "not a good model of news journalism".
And Mackenzie's is? Should you need reminding he is the man responsible for The Sun's "The Truth" headline which accused Liverpool fans at the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 of urinating on police and robbing victims.
It lost 200,000 sales in a week, its reputation on Merseyside and was condemned by the Press Complaints Commission.
In July 2004, it tried to make amends by printing a full-page apology, describing its coverage of the disaster as "the most terrible mistake in its history".
As for Mackenzie, he is still refusing to apologise to the families of the 96 people that died in the disaster.
To call for the return of this man displays amazing ignorance and insensitivity. A simple google search can tell you all you need to know about him.
Inexcusable.
Gareth Roberts
Tuesday, 15 September, 2009 4:50 PM thanks neat letter - obviously it was not a serious proposal!
9 comments:
Jaysus, that dudes reply makes him sound like he writes for a school newspaper, he is about 14 and spends his spare moments playing with his zits.
well said..I am a journalist, a Red and a Hillsborough survivor. Mckenzie's narcissism, self promotion and power trips are legendary in the industry.
His denial of any wrongdoing regarding Hillsborough beggars belief. Rule 101 in journalism check your facts and do not rely on heresay from dubious sources.
He will be challenged on this for the rest of his days by Liverpool fans until he admits he was wrong and apologises for the pain he has caused the families of the victims.
"He may be a boorish reactionary ..."
I think you might be overreacting a bit here.
@Anonymous (3)
I don't think calling him a "boorish reactionary" justifies the mention of his name in a piece bemoaning standards of journalism. Surely anyone fully aware of his crimes to journalism would steer clear of him full stop when writing such an article?
Unbelievable.
A letter complaining about a man who has shamed the names and memories of 96 men, women and children is described as "neat."
But the Journalist's reply, disgraceful as it is, doesn't surprise me.
Last year, PR Week, the PR luvvies' bible, ran a feature about the Liverpool Echo, how it's at the heart of Liverpool and all that boring nonsense.
Its opening paragraph?
"It's the Scousers' answer to the Sun."
Ignorance is everywhere.
Just a little note on the boycott. I think it should be stepped up to include all Murdoch products.
Me not buying the Sun doesn't hurt Murdoch - I wouldn't buy it anyway even if it hadn't printed those vile lies.
But I would buy the Times and the Sunday Times and I would have Sky.
Except I don't. For me it's all the same thing. If Reds started ditching Sky and stopped buying the Times as part of the Sun boycott, I think it would have added power.
Just like to add that I am a lifelong red from Plymouth and boycott the scum also and have done so since '89!
Absolutely astounding. Reporters from the rag and NOTW's Mr Bascombe were in the press box and post-match interview area on Wednesday night unquestioned.
Attitudes are changing and not for the better.
Ian L, "It's the Scousers' answer to the Sun" is not too far from the truth given the current state of the Echo.
I have lost count of the amount of times I have had to relay the tale about them getting an out-of-work actor sacked from his job as a Father Christmas at the Liverpool One shopping centre because he had a spent conviction. They went all round the houses, tattled on him and then said "we will not be pursuing the matter as his conviction was spent" AFTER they'd got him the sack.
Never thought I'd actually see comparisons between the so-called 'voice of Merseyside' and that Fleet Street rag.
Post a Comment