Clik here to view.
The readers' editor on… why the Guardian should be treated like a PG film
A reader says that he will no longer buy the Guardian. On the face of it, the reason is the use in The Guide, the paper's weekly entertainment supplement, of a band's name that includes an obscenity. It is not a new issue for the Guardian and the policy on swearwords has been written about in this and other columns before.
But underpinning the complaint is an important issue that may not be resolved by the application of a policy.
"While sitting on my sofa this morning, my seven-year-old daughter turned to me and said, 'Daddy, what does 'fucked up' mean?'", wrote the reader, referring to a music review of a punk band called Fucked Up, on page 22 of The Guide on 30 April 2011.
I replied, quoting our style guide – which, as regular readers will know, states that swearwords should be used only "when absolutely necessary to the facts of a piece, or to portray a character in an article" – and apologised that he wasn't able to intervene before his daughter read the offending review.
The reader was unhappy with my reply. "Should I really be prepared 'to intervene', as you put it, when my daughter picks up The Guide next time?" he asked. "What age do you recommend for Guardian readership if you are content to write 'Fucked Up' in bold text at the top of a review? 16 years old? 18 maybe?"
Within a matter of days there was another complaint about the retelling of the story, in the royal wedding supplement, of the young Alexander McQueen writing an obscenity into the lining of a suit being made for Prince Charles.
"My nine-year-old daughter's homework for this weekend was to cut out some pictures of the royal wedding and write down some facts about it. I gratefully handed over the [Guardian's] royal wedding supplement and was absolutely horrified when she asked me a few moments later, 'Mum, what does "cunt" mean?'."
The issues to be considered go beyond swearing. Let's be clear: we have a perfectly cogent policy, which I support, on the use of swearwords. In the first case, if the band is worth reviewing we cannot censor its name. The reader suggested using asterisks – not our policy as it's a cop-out, and in any case we would probably have readers complain that they spent all day in HMV looking for a CD by the four asterisks.
In the second instance of the McQueen story I wish we hadn't used it both in the supplement and in the sketch that turned from the front page of the main section. That looks gratuitous, even if it wasn't the intention.
In case readers feel the rules are never enforced, we recently prominently corrected the use of the word "starfucker" in a headline, which breached the guidelines and was unnecessary.
But in these recent cases the main issue is: who is the Guardian written for? This is what I wrote to the first reader: "In the past I have written that it is hard to write a paper for adults that is suitable for children. I think inevitably some parents will take the view that all sorts of material is unsuitable … If the Guardian was a film I don't think it would carry a U certificate – I think it would be a PG. Legitimate coverage of adult issues in a clear and comprehensible way is fine but we should keep out cheap, quick, gratuitously offensive pieces and pictures that are just there to shock in a puerile fashion. I don't think the Guardian always gets it right but we try harder than you might think."
There is all sorts of material in a serious newspaper that may not be understood by children without parental guidance: murder, rape, genocide, torture and disturbing pictures of events such as the aftermath of a terrorist bomb or tsunami. Of course it is the responsibility of editors to ensure that these stories are presented sensitively, intelligently and with dignity and respect for the victims. They must also be presented with honesty and integrity. Sometimes they may contain elements that need interpreting for children if parents want them to know about the issues and events involved, and I think we should do more on the website and in the paper to warn readers that there is adult content in text, audio and video. But there should be no suppression or sanitisation.