|
| Misrepresentation in Media August - September 2001 |
| This appeared on the Letters page of The Guardian in response to false assertions attributed to Harold Pinter in various articles published in The Guardian. |
|
Dissenters put the record straight
In the last two months two assertions have been
attributed to me by the Guardian. Both were serious and both were
false. The first was "Milosevic is innocent - Pinter"
(August 1). I had said no such thing. The second was by Christopher
Hitchens (September 26), stating "that if one of the hijacked
aircraft had crashed into the Capitol or White House, I would
have found myself reading Pinter or Pilger on how my neighbourhood
had been asking for it". I have said no such thing. Nor has
John Pilger. The Guardian has apologised to "all concerned"
in its Corrections column and explained that they were both "editing
errors". I believe that the existence of such highly damaging
"editing errors" at such a critical time should be more
widely known, which is why I have written this letter. The catalyst for the above letter was an article on Henry Porter's page in The Guardian on 1st August 2001. In a piece titled 'You can't have it both ways, Harold', which discusses Pinter's opinion on the trial of Milosevic, included a photograph of Harold Pinter with a caption saying 'Milosevic is innocent'..... Pinter - the first misrepresentation.
Corrections and clarifications A caption beneath a picture of Harold Pinter, illustrating an item in Henry Porter's column, page 7, G2, August 1, said "'Milosevic is innocent'... Pinter" thus attributing to Mr Pinter something that he has never said. It was also totally unjustified by the accompanying text, nowhere in which was such an assertion made. In other words, Henry Porter did not say he had said it. It led to an understandable protest by Mr Pinter in the form of a short letter, assuming that Mr Porter was responsible for the remark. Mr Porter then had to deny that he had attributed any such remark to Mr Pinter. In fact, the sub-editor who made up the page was responsible for the caption. It is against the policy of the Guardian to enclose in quotation marks something that is not a faithful account of the words quoted. An abbreviated version in a headline or caption must be justified by the quoted source. This was not. There was no source. We apologise particularly to Harold Pinter but also to Henry Porter. On the 26th September 2001, Christopher Hitchens included in his column Murder was their only motive about the attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11th, the following "the brave American civilians who fought off the hijackers over Pennsylvania would now not be allowed the in-flight cutlery or the cellphones that permitted them to mount a desperate resistance and to inform their families that they weren't going gentle. Had it been otherwise, I would be looking out at a gutted Capitol or charred White House, and reading Pinter or Pilger on how my neighborhood had been asking for it."
Corrections and clarifications In a column, Why can't Rushdie fly?, page 5, G2, yesterday, Christopher Hitchens wrote that if one of the hijacked aircraft had crashed into the Capitol or White House, he would have found himself "reading Pinter or Pilger on how my neighbourhood had been asking for it". In fact Harold Pinter has not written or suggested any such thing. The reference to him was an editing error. We apologise to all concerned.
In the last two months two assertions have been
attributed to me by the Guardian. Both were serious and both were
false. The first was "Milosevic is innocent - Pinter"
(August 1). I had said no such thing. The second was by Christopher
Hitchens (September 26), stating "that if one of the hijacked
aircraft had crashed into the Capitol or White House, I would
have found myself reading Pinter or Pilger on how my neighbourhood
had been asking for it". I have said no such thing. Nor has
John Pilger. The Guardian has apologised to "all concerned"
in its Corrections column and explained that they were both "editing
errors". I believe that the existence of such highly damaging
"editing errors" at such a critical time should be more
widely known, which is why I have written this letter. Having been informed that Harold Pinter had made
an incautious statement in the wake of September 11, I included
two disobliging references to him in my column. Discovering I
had been wrongly apprised, I asked the relevant editor for the
mentions of Harold to be removed. Only one was spotted and excised
and so I have inadvertently done him an injustice. At a time like
this, it is very important that there be no jeering or witch-hunting,
so I would be grateful if you would give this retraction the same
prominence you gave my original remarks. Christopher Hitchens's false references to me
(and Harold Pinter) are the kind of craven, gratuitous smears
that have been aimed at the Guardian itself lately as a tactic
of undermining dissent at the very time dissent is urgently needed.
I have never supported "that renowned Muslim-baiter Slobodan
Milosevic", as Hitchens wrote. He also wrote that Pinter
and I had suggested that his neighbours in America "had been
asking" for the recent atrocity. I have never written or
suggested anything as outrageous. On the contrary, last week I
wrote in the Guardian: "Nothing justifies the killing of
innocent people in America, and nothing justifies the killing
of innocent people anywhere else." It is this truth that
is such a threat to the armchair bombers. |
| Back to Politics main page |
