SIR,—In your issue of February 24 when discussing the rebuke
administered to your paper by the Press Council for using four-letter words you stated: 'We have strong grounds for believing that the initial complaint came from the News of the World.'
The News of the World made no such complaint and 1 would be obliged if you would correct this misleading statement.
I had correspondence with the Press Council after its report in which the News of the World attracted censure for publishing material about, and by, an actress with a nation-wide following. I refer to Miss Diana Dors.
But no single word, or phrase, or incident was seized upon as licentious, obscene or pornographic. In my view the charge was expressed in terms far too broad and general.
The use of four-letter words was a different matter and this lcd me to ask the Council for guidance. These words are used in the courts every day and the News of the World, you may have noticed, gives some space to court reports. It prides itself that these are balanced and fair. Indeed many tributes have been paid to us by the Bench on that score.
But we do not report four-letter words.
Pointing out that these had now been used, I asked the Council, therefore, if it would regard the future use of such words in a proper context as justified. If not, would it indicate its views.
Its views have now been made known.—Yours
Editor, News of the World
30 B014 Eerie Street, Fleet Street, EC4
Me are enchanted to learn that our suspicions were correct, and that it was the News of the World which originally laid this matter before the Press Council.—Editor, Spectator.]
Previous page
