The Guardian has actually printed said word on their front page before (IIRC, it was in Simon Hoggarts diary), although not in such large letters. And then there was that Martin Amis porn thing in the Weekend section last year, which even I thought went a bit too far.

But anyway, point is, people who read the Guardian should already know that they're not afraid to print such language, so I don't see any great reason to moan about it now. As to whether it was appropriate to the piece, well, not really.. and the artists explanation just makes her sound childish.

(Edited by In a State of Dan 07/01/2003 16:13)

Warning: Every one of the articles linked to in this post contains either strong or very strong language that will offend many readers, and is unsuitable for young children

This is not, in fact, the first time The Guardian has printed the swearword in question in a headline on the front of one of their sub-sections: the issue of the Editor (their weekly news roundup) immediately following September 11 carried the quote from a broker who died in the conflagration: "We're ******* dying in here!" (my asterisks) over a picture of the collapsing towers.

That was supported, I thought, by context due to the extremity of what had transpired, and juxtaposed against the photo, it made a powerful image indeed.

But today's cover is just lazy, crass and offensive. And it is not an isolated incident; the profanity printed in The Guardian has reached utter excess. The word emblazoned across the cover of G2 is printed, on average, two times every day! Out of the 11 national dailies, The Guardian, The Financial Times and The Independent routinely print the word, but only the Grauniad seems incapable of exercising even a modicum of restraint.

Quoting from the 1998 article "Expletives and Excess" from Ian Mayes, the paper's Readers' Editor, a journalist said: "I think it's a privilege to work on a paper which has the liberal values and readership to permit publication of the strongest of swear words, a privilege that we should guard by not abusing it." The Guardian has most definitely abused it with this latest stunt.

The question is not whether they can push the boundaries to ever-greater extremities - they can, and there's nothing to stop them - but whether the context supports the strong content; whether it sufficiently mitigates the offensive inevitably caused to readers. The Guardian has decided, and I agree, that partially eliding a word ("c***" for "crap", for example) is pointless, as the reader merely replaces the missing letters, and the offensiveness remains intact.

The paper's style guide says there is almost never a case where swearwords need to be used outside quotes. The copulatory oath in question has been used in copy by columnists several times, with little if any justification, but that was acceptable because it was relatively innocuous and the voice of an individual. The cover of G2, whoever writes it, is not only extremely prominent, but is the voice of the paper, and that voice should not cause gross offensive with absolutely no good reason (there is no good reason I can see, it's cheap shock tactics). The article "Expletive deleted", about the history of the word printed on the cover of G2, contained frequent uses of the oath, and worse, but it was fully supported by the context of the article.

The newspaper I read, The Independent, also prints all swearwords in certain contexts. By coincidence, a news report about the influence of rap music - here - that appeared today contains multiple unexpurgated uses of the word The Guardian has used, and worse, but this was printed in a small font and was essential to the context of the piece, and not designed to shock (and the G2 cover has been). The half-warning printed on the front page of The Guardian is no-good; people would probably assume it to be in jest. Both The Guardian and the Indy have printed the profanity in the copy text on their front covers (and when reporting the alleged words of Roy Keane at the world cup, The Guardian printed even worse) , but it was discrete, and essential to the story.

Taking things to this extreme fulfils every prejudice and negative assumption that people will inevitably abuse freedom of speech. To quote from another article by Ian Mayes from this year, "Undiluted and Undeleted", "There is no evidence that the use of swearwords extends the readership or enhances circulation. There is some evidence of the opposite effect. Their use beyond the limits of toleration is not an act of egalitarianism or friendly association. It encloses and it excludes."

This is as bad as when the Mirror printed this word in a headline across its front page in the wake of the tape where Osama bin Laden allegedly confessed to the September 11 atrocity. It goes way beyond the limits of toleration, and for the sake of freedom of speech in the press in general, I sincerely hope The Guardian gets a grip on this sorry egregious farce!

Well we've just been told that due to certain stockists refusing to sell the paper we've lost rather a lot of copies (daren't say how many just in case i could get sacked - maybe Lori will be allowed to tell us), so hopefully the circulation figure will make the Guardian rethink! I'm just happy that it wasn't in tomorrows paper so I don't get shouted at by my clients

Well, you haven't seen what the Chapman brothers have come up with yet...

wow - and there was me laughing my um...head off. Ever the sophisticate...

All that said, I've just entered the prize draw to win a copy of the "artwork" for the hell of it.

Gillian Wearing has just issued an apology.

"Ms Wearing said she was surprised by the number of protests about the cover ... 'I thought people would laugh at it and not even look at it for long. It just shows you cannot predict what people will think,' she said. 'I am sorry if I have offended people.' "

If she couldn't work out the likely response her "artwork" would provoke, then she really needs to get out of the Turner Clique once in a while!

---

by Sydney
Well we've just been told that due to certain stockists refusing to sell the paper we've lost rather a lot of copies

---

I would imagine so. I don't know the full impact this has had yet (partly because I have been off work ill today), but I did hear that the copies we sent to France were returned. I shall ask in our department what the returns level was for Tuesday's issue, out of interest.

I read an article yesterday on Guardian Unlimited that was written after 50 complaints were received. It suggested that, if you commission an artist rather than an illustrator, you have less say in the final piece. That sounds like an attempt at passing the buck to me. I'm going to see what else they have to say on the subject now actually...

Warning: As before, all the links contain unexpurgated strong language ... what else?

Proving there's no point in making a molehill without piling on a mountain, today's Guardian G2 contained three pages devoted to the issue, including an article by Ian Katz, the Guardian features editor, about why he agreed to print the cover. Ironically, while adressing complaints about the cover, G2 probably printed the four-letter word at least 50 times, and as the coup de grace, it also managed to print the only two ruder words when it reproduced readers' angry letters (and while expressing their disgust, most of them spelt out the offending word as well - Grauniad readers egh! ). The now-infamous cover was reproduced into the bargain.

Mr Katz's article, I'm sorry to say, seemed like one long cop-out, though he did apologise to anyone the cover had offended at the end. I accept he didn't go out to deliberately upset people, but saying he couldn't say no to Gillian Wearing's idea seemed like a serious disavowal of editorial duty to me, especially as he already admited the line would have to be drawn somewhere: "plainly we would have dropped any of our artists' covers, if, for argument's sake, they had called for the expulsion of all Muslims". And his answer to outraged parents - "One is that any parent knows that almost any child over the age of six will be exposed daily to (and will almost certainly be using) language that would make Wearing sound like a country vicar" - is frankly insulting.

He still thinks the Guardian were right to print it.

Today's Independent printed a news report about the debacle, including the offending phrase, but I doubt they'll be getting 200 complaints: it's not the words, it's how they were presented.

But at least one classic has come out of all of this, and I'm not talking about felt-tip scrawled swearwords: turns out that Piers Morgan (Daily Mirror editor) has a hitherto unsuspected wicked sense of humour. I laughed out loud at his [very rude] letter!

(Edited by Byron 08/01/2003 18:32)

And come to think of it, why hasn't Alan Runsbridger (the Guardian editor-in-chief) responded, instead of leaving Ian Katz to take all the flack? After all, he's ultimately responsible for everything that appears in his newspaper!

Ultimately responsible, yes, but really, this isn't all that important an issue, and since it seems Rusbridger actually had nothing to do with it, how insightful would a piece by him on the matter really be?

Mark and Lard had a good thought about this, get one of the competitors to print a page saying "**** Gillian Wearing"

It's not big, it's not clever, it's not funny, and it's not art. Any idiot could do the same, and probably has, but they've just not been deluded enough to consider it art.

*Yawn*
Next!

(Edited by Stoo 08/01/2003 20:14)

---

by Stoo
Mark and Lard had a good thought about this, get one of the competitors to print a page saying "**** Gillian Wearing"

It's not big, it's not clever, it's not funny, and it's not art. Any idiot could do the same, and probably has, but they've just not been deluded enough to consider it art.

*Yawn*
Next!

---

Three of the letters printed in G2 today (as before, my asterisks):

****
GILLIAN
WEARING

If you want me to sign some copies of this to give away to readers, please contact me.
Neil Doherty Northolt, Middlesex

It may be "art", but it's not big or clever.
David Kenning Whitstable, Kent

"It is NOT art. It is NOT funny. It is NOT clever." Dennis Eborall

Many minds thinking alike here I think!

Dan: You're right, Ian Katz should have written the article, but Runsbridger is legally responsible for all content, so I think a quick explanation from him would be very relevent: the ultimate descision to pass it for publication was - assumedly - his.

And considering this has caused among the greatest number of complaints the paper has ever recieved, I think it should definitely be important enough. Simon Kelner, the Indy's editor, has personally responded to far less.

Especially as the BBC have now picked up the story. (For the first time, a report about this that doesn't contain strong language! )

---

by Byron
And come to think of it, why hasn't Alan Runsbridger (the Guardian editor-in-chief) responded, instead of leaving Ian Katz to take all the flack? After all, he's ultimately responsible for everything that appears in his newspaper!

---

Having met the guy i think he's likely to not be bothered. His reaction was probably something akin to the original artwork

---

by Byron
Warning: As before, all the links contain unexpurgated strong language ... what else?

turns out that Piers Morgan (Daily Mirror editor) has a hitherto unsuspected wicked sense of humour. I laughed out loud at his [very rude] letter!

(Edited by Byron 08/01/2003 18:32)

---

That man is hilarious!!! He's really funny when i've seen him on TV, but this was a peice of genius

---

by Sydney
(quotes)

Having met the guy i think he's likely to not be bothered. His reaction was probably something akin to the original artwork

---

Hummmm, somehow that fails to surprise me.

---

by Byron
Dan: You're right, Ian Katz should have written the article, but Runsbridger is legally responsible for all content,

---

But there aren't, so far, any legal issues involved. I'm sure you can think of instances when there have been (Jonathan Aitken anyone?), and he certainly hasn't been afraid to get involved then.

---

by In a State of Dan
(quotes)
But there aren't, so far, any legal issues involved. I'm sure you can think of instances when there have been (Jonathan Aitken anyone?), and he certainly hasn't been afraid to get involved then.

---

Well no, there's not been any legal issues with the Grauniad printing the word since the first time the did during the Lady Chatterly trial (!). I only used that example to show how much responsibility is placed in the role of editor with regards to content - he is very much responsible because he personally approves everything in the paper.

The Guardian prides itself on being an open paper - it was the first to appoint a readers' editor - so I'd hope the editor would get involved with issues that, even if he isn't legally compelled to, still have a substantial impact with readers. (Like when Simon Kelner explained why he published the controversial photo of a grieving Gordon Brown.)

(Edited by Byron 09/01/2003 00:42)

---

by Byron
turns out that Piers Morgan (Daily Mirror editor) has a hitherto unsuspected wicked sense of humour. I laughed out loud at his [b][very rude] letter!

---

Now that's funny