The Times Defends Hate
Nov. 24th, 2005 06:40 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
nobmouse.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
transThe following is in reply to a letter I sent to the times after the infamous 'critic' Carol Sarler decided it was acceptable to attack a doctor because they were transsexual. If you'd like to see the original piece that sparked this off, click here.
Dear Ms Robinson
The Editor has passed me your letter of 17 October regarding your serious concerns about a Thunderer column in The Times of that day by Carol Sarler on the subject of transsexuality and entitled "For she's a jolly poor fellow" - we are sorry it has caused you to write and please forgive my delay in replying. We are always pleased to receive such considered letters from readers who speak passionately about their paper, whether in praise or complaint; we take their views seriously and the dialogue between a newspaper and its readership is crucial to maintaining vitality, balance and relevance in its pages.
The Thunderer column is part of two facing pages every day of opinion under the label Comment and is but one small part of a mosaic of opinion pieces in The Times. The Comment pages are composed of many differing views, all presented as personal opinions and not as a view of The Times. The contributors tackle daily difficult subjects of contemporary affairs and their interpretations are not always to everyone's taste. That would appear to be the case for you here. However Clause 1 (iii) of the Editor's Code of Practice states that the Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact and the presentation of this article does not infringe that. The Comment section is clearly labelled (as opposed to News, World News, Business etc) and designed differently to other pages and sections. It is a fixed, known and expected part of The Times every day.
Clause 12 (i) deals with prejudicial or pejorative reference to individuals and discrimination. This column was based on a contemporary case but Ms Sarler is quite entitled to express her preference of doctor. The very nature of choice of doctor is intimate and individual. It is an honestly held opinion. Indeed she writes "However compassionate one might care to be ..." and "And while I wish the good doctor no personal ill .." she is simply expressing a personal view and not claiming it to be universal.
You concede that "Part of the treatment for transsexuality may be considered to be cosmetic surgery in some viewpoints ..." so why should Ms Sarler not be allowed to express that consideration? To infringe the code the prejudicial or pejorative references to the individual have to be discriminatory. The decision of the General Medical Council to grant general practitioner status for the first time to a postoperative transsexual was a landmark case and was a story widely covered in the media as a news story in the preceding
days. It was clearly a story of public interest, genuinely relevant and one worthy of comment.
We have passed a copy of your letter to Ms Sarler so that she may be better acquainted with the various different arguments and viewpoints in the future. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and for taking such trouble to write.
Yours sincerely
David Chappell
I'm now preparing a reply in which I intend to cite the legislation that states quite clearly that any 'opinion' that is in a paid-for article is considered by law to be expressive of the views of the paying body, i.e. the Times paying for Sarler's article means her views are regarded as the views of the Times.
Furthermore, they ask why Sarler shouldn't have prejudicial views, therefore I shall ask again if they would be trying to defend her if she's attacked a doctor for being coloured, disabled or holding a particular religious viewpoint.
I doubt it will do any good but the complaints procedure must be exhaused before the Press Complaints Commission would step in when I contact them. Also, I'm still holding out a little hope that the Times is as respectable as I once thought it to be, so hopefully they'll see sense yet.
Dear Ms Robinson
The Editor has passed me your letter of 17 October regarding your serious concerns about a Thunderer column in The Times of that day by Carol Sarler on the subject of transsexuality and entitled "For she's a jolly poor fellow" - we are sorry it has caused you to write and please forgive my delay in replying. We are always pleased to receive such considered letters from readers who speak passionately about their paper, whether in praise or complaint; we take their views seriously and the dialogue between a newspaper and its readership is crucial to maintaining vitality, balance and relevance in its pages.
The Thunderer column is part of two facing pages every day of opinion under the label Comment and is but one small part of a mosaic of opinion pieces in The Times. The Comment pages are composed of many differing views, all presented as personal opinions and not as a view of The Times. The contributors tackle daily difficult subjects of contemporary affairs and their interpretations are not always to everyone's taste. That would appear to be the case for you here. However Clause 1 (iii) of the Editor's Code of Practice states that the Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact and the presentation of this article does not infringe that. The Comment section is clearly labelled (as opposed to News, World News, Business etc) and designed differently to other pages and sections. It is a fixed, known and expected part of The Times every day.
Clause 12 (i) deals with prejudicial or pejorative reference to individuals and discrimination. This column was based on a contemporary case but Ms Sarler is quite entitled to express her preference of doctor. The very nature of choice of doctor is intimate and individual. It is an honestly held opinion. Indeed she writes "However compassionate one might care to be ..." and "And while I wish the good doctor no personal ill .." she is simply expressing a personal view and not claiming it to be universal.
You concede that "Part of the treatment for transsexuality may be considered to be cosmetic surgery in some viewpoints ..." so why should Ms Sarler not be allowed to express that consideration? To infringe the code the prejudicial or pejorative references to the individual have to be discriminatory. The decision of the General Medical Council to grant general practitioner status for the first time to a postoperative transsexual was a landmark case and was a story widely covered in the media as a news story in the preceding
days. It was clearly a story of public interest, genuinely relevant and one worthy of comment.
We have passed a copy of your letter to Ms Sarler so that she may be better acquainted with the various different arguments and viewpoints in the future. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and for taking such trouble to write.
Yours sincerely
David Chappell
I'm now preparing a reply in which I intend to cite the legislation that states quite clearly that any 'opinion' that is in a paid-for article is considered by law to be expressive of the views of the paying body, i.e. the Times paying for Sarler's article means her views are regarded as the views of the Times.
Furthermore, they ask why Sarler shouldn't have prejudicial views, therefore I shall ask again if they would be trying to defend her if she's attacked a doctor for being coloured, disabled or holding a particular religious viewpoint.
I doubt it will do any good but the complaints procedure must be exhaused before the Press Complaints Commission would step in when I contact them. Also, I'm still holding out a little hope that the Times is as respectable as I once thought it to be, so hopefully they'll see sense yet.