The Guardian now requires all editorials to be approved by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor after publishing a controversial editorial that attacked former Prime Minister David Cameron.
As iMediaEthics has previously reported, in September, a Guardian editorial claimed that Cameron only had “privileged pain” over his son’s death. The Guardian amended the editorial after publication and criticism, noting it “fell far short of our standards.” Later that month, Guardian readers editor Paul Chadwick slammed the column and quoted the paper’s editor-in-chief as saying she was “personally completely devastated” that the editorial made it to publication.
The new editorial processes were shared in a Dec. 1 column from readers editor Chadwick. He quoted Guardian editor-in-chief Katharine Viner explaining: “we have tightened up editorial processes on a Sunday and all leaders are now seen before publication online by either the deputy editor or me.”
Viner told Chadwick the inappropriate Cameron editorial slipped through.
“Our editorials are written by a team of colleagues, who agree themes and lines with me in advance; the articles then pass through a thorough editing and production process. This system has worked well on weekdays, but on that particular Sunday the subject matter was highly inappropriate and through a series of errors it was not shown to senior enough colleagues,” she is quoted as saying.
The month of publication, Chadwick reported that three editors reviewed the editorial before publication.
Comments Terms and Conditions