Image Text:

EMOTIVE ISSUE: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) tried to ‘bury’ the word

THE PRESS Complaints Commission (PCC) last week ruled in favour of The Guardian newspaper over its unedited use of the N-word.

The ruling came after filmmaker Nia Reynolds raised an official complaint with the newspaper watchdog over the publication’s policy to write the term in its entirety when it is within a quote. Reynolds called on the newspaper to review its style guide and abandon the use of the “inflammatory, offensive and demeaning word”.

The commission acknowledged Reynolds’ concern that, in repeating a racist term without the use of an asterix for example, the newspaper could potentially be in breach of the Editor’s Code of Practice, which states: “The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.”

But the PCC, responsible for the self-regulation of the press, concluded that publications were free to make style decisions, providing that they didn’t breach terms of the code.

In the case of The Guardian, the commission said it was satisfied that the use of the term in the articles was not a pejorative reference, but an accurate report of comments made by others, such as in the case of pop star Justin Bieber and BBC presenter Jeremy Clarkson, who were both criticised for using the word.

The newspaper was entitled to reproduce these comments in the context of news stories, the PCC decided, in informing readers as to what had been said and allowing them to form their own opinions.

The Guardian, which has millions of readers across its online and print editions, addressed the matter in a blog.
Readers editor Ian Mayes identified the contentions amongst writers regarding the use of the term, including its assistant comment editor Joseph Harker, who raised his objections.

But despite acknowledging the sensitivity and the historical roots of such language, the paper said it remained committed to a ‘word for word account of racist abuse’ insisting that quoting individuals in full without censorship was essential for transparency.

“There is a blatant contradiction about having the mitigation of N-word and then proceeding to use that hateful word without editing,” responded campaigner Reynolds, a writer who has previously written for The Guardian.

She was backed by other readers. One commented: “It is just as objectionable coming out of the mouth of Clarkson, or anyone else, as it is seeing it in print in The Guardian.”

Reynolds has said she plans to continue lobbying against the policy and suggested that the paper was intentionally trying to be ‘provocative’.

George Ruddock, editor of The Voice, said: “We do not use this derogatory term whether reporting or in direct quotes. In its abbreviated form [n***er], readers have a clear knowledge of what the word is and publications should seek to not reproduce it in its entirety under any circumstance.”