Ed: the Guardian has printed the following apology regarding an article by Jonathan Aitken in their 'Comment if Free' column:
In a Comment article, This isn't the Anglican split, page 28, July 5, it was stated that Dr Elaine Storkey, in a meeting of staff and students, compared the principal of Wycliffe Hall, Dr Richard Turnbull, to "one of the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg". This was incorrect. She did not compare Dr Turnbull to the Nazi defendants or use the words quoted. We apologise for this error.
On the Fulcrum and Thinking Anglicans websites this has produced interesting reactions for such a limited statement. The phrase 'spitting chips' comes to mind.
Saturday, 28 July 2007
Guardian apology over 'Nazi' jibe
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Really John? You don't understand why some of us are very cross about the malicious briefing against Elaine Storkey (not just in the Guardian but, inter alia, on an anonymous post here which you allowed to stand)? Well I certainly don't understand how any fair minded person could fail to be incensed by it. For Aitken to have used those words in quotes suggests very strongly that he was passing on what he had also received. Trouble is, it seems to have been a lie. Which is not anything to worry about. I see.
Dear Paul
I would simply refer you to the innuendos about Richard Turnbull made on Fulcrum, Thinking Anglicans, and elsewhere (mostly by people whose full names are, incidentally, witheld).
The Guardian retracted a version of a statement. We do not know, on the basis of their retraction, whether a similar statement was made, or no statement at all. The facts are very much more limited than the barrage of negative comments and implicit accusations, even in your comment above, warranted.
It is obviously hard for us to 'see ourselves as others see us'. However, in this regard Fulcrum types perhaps don't realize how they come across, which is sometimes as a fairly unpleasant bunch!
John Richardson
It doesn't look like we will agree on this! The retraction is complete - neither the words, nor the comparison couched in other words, were used. If Mr Aitken relied on a report from someone who was not there for a direct quotation(or put quotes around Chinese whispers)he was foolish: if his source was first hand (and I'm not speculating who) then that source was not telling the truth. Either way someone was wrongly maligning Elaine. I make no apology for regarding her as one of the unequivocal Good Guys, but I'd expect even someone who disagreed with that, to be concerned at how she has been misrepresented.
I'm also sure it's not helpful to keep on implying that Fulcrum members or management should be judged by what is posted on an open forum. Relatively few of the posters on some threads seem to identify with a "Fulcrum position", if such can be defined, on anything at all.
Paul Godfrey Chelmsford
The point I'm making about the Guardian's statement and the Fulcrum and Thinking Anglicans response is that it is itself quite precise and very limited. It says (a) that Jonathan Aitken's article contained an incorrect statement and (b) that, specifically, Dr Elaine Storkey "did not compare Dr Turnbull to the Nazi defendants or use the words quoted." Nothing more than this could be said, in a court of law, to have been stated or implied.
We can therefore be clear as to what Dr Storkey did not do (ie used the words or make the comparison attributed to her in the article). However, there are any number of options as to what she could have done, irregardless of the Guardian's statement. For example, it is possible, even in the light of this retraction, that Dr Storkey did speak about Nuremburg, but did not compare Richard Turnbull to one of the defendants. In other words, Jonathan Aitken's remarks may have been misunderstanding of something that was said, rather than the "lie direct" attributed to him, or his source, by some Fulcrum bloggers.
Certainly from what was said in the Guardian, we have no greater enlightenment as to the basis on which Jonathan Aitken made the original attribution. Yet there are comments on the Fulcrum website such as this from 'Sarah': "Sounds like many of us are speculating that Aitken's garbled version of events came from Turnbull - a justifiable assumption". Well, actually, no, not on the basis of the facts in the public domain.
It is the vitriolic flavour to many of the comments directed at Richard Turnbull on the Fulcrum website which I find distasteful. Bluntly, I expect that sort of thing from 'Thinking Anglicans', but one might have hoped that fellow Evangelicals could do better.
There is a good rule of thumb in writing or commenting, which is to ask whether I would say this to the person's face. Frankly, there are many things said in blogs which the bloggers would, I suspect, be too nervous to say to someone's face, but which are easy to write, especially when names are withheld.
Sorry John, I am having trouble following your argument. As I understand the situation Jonathan Aitken wrote an article in which he quoted Dr Storkey. The context of the quote in the article and the words in the quote at best present Dr Storkey in an unfavourable light and at worst could be claimed to libel her. The Guardian has published a correction acknowledging that Dr Storkey did not say what she was quoted as saying. Whether the quote is based on misunderstanding, repeating a rumour or a lie is beside the point. Dr Storkey did not say what she was quoted as saying and the quote is untrue.
We can speculate as much as we like about what was said in the particular staff and student meeting referred to but neither of us were there so at best our knowledge, like Aitken's, would be second hand. As we now know from the Guardian's correction such second hand knowledge can result in a false statement being made. I'm not sure your speculation as to what possibly could have been said helps. Any one can speculate as to what might possibly have ben said at a meeting we were not present at.
Even if Dr Storkey had been quoted correctly, the context in which she uttered her words would affect the significance of those words.
I would make the following points:
1. As Christians we are called to speak the truth and not to bear false witness.
2. Truth and accuracy are important particularly when addressing sensitive issues.
3. I do not understand why Aitken wrote an article which could not but help to fan the flames of the controversy.
4. I was surprised at the ungenerous spirit in which Aitken wrote about members of the Wycliffe staff. Some of those members of staff were part of the Christian community which offered him a welcome following his time in prison. As a former student I know some of them personally and hold them in the highest regard.
You mention a good rule of thumb in writing or commenting with which I fully agree. However, it does seem that in this case Mr Aitken would have done well to follow your advice.
My point, as I've tried to make clear, is that the reaction to the Guardian statement, specifically on the Fulcrum and Thinking Anglican websites, was to make a number of unwarranted assumptions and assertions quite other than about what Jonathan Aitken had said and what Elaine Storkey hadn't. You'll need to go and check these for yourself (linked from this website) to see what I mean.
Specifically, though, there were statements that Aitken had, at very least, reported a lie, whereas (as we know) untrue statements may not be lies, as such. Moreover, there was an unreasonable and unwarranted amount of finger-pointing in the direction of Richard Turnbull.
I have simply been trying to point out the limitations of what we have been told, compared with the speculations about what we have not. It is possible Aitken was lied to, lied, or reported something approximating to the truth, but not in the terms attributed. It is a case of trying to understand the limitations of evidence, which in this case is pretty thin.
Having said all that, maybe he shouldn't have written as he did, but if, as I have, you have followed the furore about Richard Turnbull's policies at Wycliffe, you may understand someone who wanted to come to his defence, albeit perhaps unwisely.
The thing that I think is far more important is why Richard Turnbull's stance has provoked such a hostile reaction. It may be that his management style is flawed. Again, I don't know, but if it is that can be addressed. But clearly the criticism is as much of his theological position as of his managerial skills (see Fulcrum passim). It is not his style, in other words, but his policy which has provoked such criticism, which would not be allayed by a gentler approach, any more than Oak Hill has become 'flavour of the month' under David Peterson's eirenic approach.
Dear John
Really meant to let go of this but it is nagging at me. A fine person has been publicly maligned and you seem simply to want to quibble about how it might have happened, or how someone else on another site may be doing something as bad. A plague on all of the speculation on whatever site, whoever it's designed to make look bad.
But we know that what was reported in the Guardian about Elaine Storkey was a piece of false witness. And we know that the beneficiary of that piece of false witness made no public statement in the 20 days after it was published to distance himself from it - which is simply wrong, irrespective of the route by which the false witness got into the public domain. Unless the truth doesn't matter.
Paul Godfrey (Bedford - today. Not really sure why you want to know where to find commenters! Tomorrow I will mostly be in....)
Dear Paul
A fine person has indeed been publicly maligned. In fact, two fine people, as far as I am aware, have been publicly maligned.
One has had a statement they didn't make attributed to them. The other has been called either a liar or the source of a lie, and now the passive beneficiary of an untruth.
Of course, the truth matters, as does speaking the truth to one another, in love.
I do not know what, if anything, Richard Turnbull said to anyone about the Jonathan Aitken piece. I do not know, for example, whether he spoke to the Guardian, or someone else did. Equally, I do not know what Elaine Storkey said to anyone about the Jonathan Aitken piece. I do not know, for example, whether she spoke to the Guardian, or someone else did.
What I do know, and have read, is speculation and accusation, without supporting testimony, which, had I been Richard Turnbull, I would have been sorely tempted to respond to.
It is the old saw, that two wrongs do not make a right. Some repentance is undoubtedly due somewhere, but it is not for us to judge where and from whom - certainly not on the information and evidence available to us.
For the sake of the community, I think it really is time we let this one 'rest in peace'.
John, why can't you accept that what J Aitken did was wrong. Jonathan Aitken wrote something that was untrue about another Christian and it was published in a national newspaper. Whatever his source he was responsible for perpetuating something that was false. That is wrong and no amount of sophistry will make it right. It is not a case of 'maybe he shouldn't have written as he did', he should not have written something that was untrue. Whatever has been said about Dr Turnbull does not justify what Mr Aitken wrote about Dr Storkey. The truth is not relative.
I have read the many comments on the Wycliffe controversy and have to say there is a lot of speculation and mud slinging on all sides. I also watched with dismay Richard Turnbull's address to Reform. I can certainly understand why that address attracted so much criticism. I'm not basing that on hearsay or speculation, I watched and heard it with my own eyes and ears.
Until now I have avoided joining in the discussion on any of the message boards because there seems to be too much heat and not enough light on the whole matter. Some of the chief players are prevented from commenting because of disciplinary matters. However, one of those players, Dr Storkey, was quoted as saying something she simply did not say and that is wrong, no ifs or buts or maybes.
Philip Ritchie, Chelmsford.
Phil
You wrote, "why can't you accept that what J Aitken did was wrong[?]", but then you added that the 'wrong' was that he "wrote something that was untrue about another Christian and it was published in a national newspaper."
That he did - but we do not know whether, when he wrote what he did, he believed it to be true. If he did - and the presumption would normally be that that was the case - then the initial 'wrong' which can be laid at his door was not him writing something that was not true.
This is why I have sought to draw attention to the limitations of what has been established and to the extreme and (in the face of the evidence) unwarranted nature of reactions in some blogs and discussion forums.
I accept, on the basis of the Guardian's retraction, that Jonathan Aitken wrongly attributed a particular remark to Elaine Storkey. That is admitted by everyone.
I do not believe we can say on this basis, however, simply that "he was responsible for perpetuating something that was false" or that "he should not have written something that was untrue", as if he lied. That would I suggest, be a libel. We are not in the position to judge from what is in the public domain whether or not he knowingly and culpably propagated an untruth. That is my point.
That is not to raise "ifs buts or maybes" about whether Dr Storkey did or did not say what was attributed to her. It is, however, to caution against a rush to judgement about culpability and responsibility.
It may be fair to say, "Jonathan Aitken was party to information he believed to be true but which he was in any case wrong to have published." It is also true to say something which was untrue would have been better not published, but an untruth may be believed unwittingly. We therefore need to be very careful - much more careful than I have seen in many comments - as to whom we now blame and for what.
As to Richard Turnbull's address to the Reform conference, that would be more troubling to some people than to others, and doubtless troubling for different reasons. I doubt whether any Evangelical would be as troubled as Stephen Bates clearly was about the suggestion that most people in this country are in danger of Hell without hearing the message of Jesus. Nor would they be concerned about his concerns about Liberalism. You may like to say what dismayed you about his address, but that would open up another line of comment.
John,
I think you may need to brush up on the law of defamation covering slander and libel. Defamation is making and publishing a false statement about another person which damages that person's reputation. Lord Atkin (no irony intended) in 1936 defined defamation as a statement which tends 'to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society..'
Legally, and I believe morally, a person is responsible for what they write and publish, whether or not they believe it to be true at the time.
In saying that Aitken should not have written something that was untrue I am not implying he lied. I am simply stating that he should not have written it. He is responsible for his comments whatever the source and whatever his motives.
Regarding Richard Turnbull's address to Reform, you are right that would be another line of comment.
Philip Ritchie, Chelmsford
Dear Phil
Not withstanding the law that defines a defamatory statement, the question is how we decide whether someone is themselves guilty of defamation. The 'classic' defintion of defamation is, “A publication, without justification or lawful excuse, which is calculated to injure the reputation of another, by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.”
The moral question would be the point at which a person ceases to have an excuse for publication.
Take, for example, what police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair was saying to the public shortly after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, regarding his actions and the grounds on which he was short.
Sir Ian pictured Menezes as a criminal and a terrorist who was responsible for his own death.
Did Sir Ian 'defame' an innocent man. Yes, by the definition you offer. Was Sir Ian guilty of defamation? In the light of later evidence, I doubt whether that is a charge that would stick, even though what he said was untrue and had to be retracted.
In the absence of further information regarding Jonathan Aitken's sources, I believe we can draw a parallel for the time being between the two situations.
It would be unhelpful to allege lying on the part of Sir Ian Blair, or that he 'repeated a lie', as if he was party to wrongdoing. Indeed, that might itself be defamatory.
In Jonathan Aitken's case, the absence of evidence means we should exercise caution - a caution that has not been evident - in attributing blame to him or to others, for making a statement which turned out to be false.
It may, of course, be that a Christian should not make any 'defamatory' remarks about another, even if they are true. That, however, is a different point than the one under consideration.
John
The law is very clear on defamation and libel, check out any basic law text book. There are three basic tests:
1. was the person identified?
2. was the statement defamatory?
The guidelines for juries are that a statement is defamatory if it merely TENDS to lower their reputation in any (not ALL) of the following ways (there is no need for the complainant to prove that they have lost out in any way, only that it could possibly damage their reputation):
(1) Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt
(2) Causes them to be shunned or avoided
(3) Discredits them in their trade, business or profession
(4) Generally lowers them in the eyes of right-thinking members of society
3. was the statement published?
Under the 1996 act there is a defence open to the defendant.The defendant should publish a correction and apology and offer recompense as soon as possible.
There are no excuses for publication but there are certain defences; justification, fair comment and privelage are the most common.
The Ian Blair example doesn't apply. You can't legally defame a dead man and their estate cannot sue for defamation. If Blair had made his statement and the man had lived I think he may have had a case to answer, unless he could offer one of the defences mentioned above. His defence might be that, as soon as he was aware that statements made about the man were untrue, he issued a correction and apology and offered financial recompense for damage to reputation.
Sources are irrelevant. If you say or publish something about a person that is untrue you open yourself to action. By the way, sticking 'allegedly' infront of a statement doesn't protect one from a charge of defamation!
Please note that at no stage have I accused anyone of lying in either case, Blair or Aitken, that is not the test under the law. I am simply stating the fact that both are responsible under the law for statements they publish about other people.
Having followed the comments and blogs on the Wycliffe Hall case and the Aitken article I think many contributors would do well to gen up on the law in this regard. It applies to comments published on the internet as in any other form. In this respect John I think we are probably in full agreement.
I think the following web link is helpful as a guideline, though its the BBC who have their own problems at the moment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/A656796
Philip Ritchie, Chelmsford
Dear Phil
My analogy with Ian Blair is this, that Sir Ian is able to say, accurately, "I did not lie," when he justified his own statements about Jean Charles De Menezes.
As to the law, you will notice I referred in my previous comment to the moral question, not the legal question, because I do not know, nor do I wish to be wholly limited by, what the law might say. We must, as Christians, be careful to note that the law may go too far, or not far enough, in the way it deals with human behaviour (viz the present situation regarding SORs or Civil Partnerships). As you say, a defamatory remark may be defended if it is 'justifiable' or 'fair comment'. However, that does not mean it is necessarily right to make such a remark!
However, at the point where he made the remarks he did about Elaine Storkey, I am presuming Jonathan Aitken felt he had justification. (Whether he was morally right to pass on those remarks is another question.) In the event, however, he did not have the justification of truthfulness, as (equally in this regard) Sir Ian Blair did not in the case of De Menezes. Nevertheless, he might also be able to say, as did Sir Ian, "I did not lie."
The absence of evidence in the public domain also means we cannot say he was lied to. Specifically, and this was actually my main point which is in danger of getting lost, it did not justify the reactions of some commentors and bloggers, who not only accused Aitken of lying or repeating a lie, but implied some involvement and culpability on the part of Richard Turnbull.
Certainly, if one inadvertently makes an inaccurate statement about someone, whether in print or elsewhere, one should seek to rectify that. This is not, for a Christian, only a matter of law but of moral right. For a Christian, indeed, it will often be the case that even a truth should not be aired.
The reaction of many people, however, was not to say, "Jonathan Aitken got it wrong about what he reported Elaine Storkey to have said vis a vis Nazis and Nuremberg, it is good that a correction has been issued, we might hope he has made a personal apology, and perhaps such remarks should in any case not be reported it even if they are true." Instead, there was an outburst of comments going beyond anything which could be said about anyone, or anything anyone had said or done, based on the evidence. (My 'spitting chips' reference.)
The point I have been making about what Jonathan Aitken said is this: that we don't actually know exactly why he said it - whether he thought it was true, or whether he knew it was not. We must therefore not go beyond this to make further accusations about either him or other people.
Don't you find this a little odd, John? Since we're all serving truth and justice, wouldn't it behove Jonathan Aitken to a)explain how he came to be embroiled in this? Was he invited to write about the situation at Wycliffe Hall and, if so, by whom? Or did he just spontaneously decide to visit his old alma mater and write about it?; Did he discuss a draft of the article with anyone on the staff of Wycliffe and if so, who? What work did he actually do to verify what he was told?; and b)
who told him of the statement Elaine Storkey is alleged to have made? If you believe that blog posters should have to identify themselves to cut-down on the writing of comments they wouldn't be prepared to say to someone's face, I assume you don't believe that folk should be free to make anonymous allegations about others via national newspapers.
And wouldn't it also behove Dr Turnbull to explain why he seems to have remained silent rather than come to the defence of a member of his staff when she was falsely maligned?
Really, I don't find it especially odd - but maybe I lack imagination! I just suppose there are reasons.
As to getting any answers, though, one would have to ask Aitken, Turnbull and Storkey. I haven't a clue.
Post a Comment