So someone who made a complaint has received this official response from the paper (not me)
Thank you for your comments regarding Catriona Stewart’s column in The Herald of September 11. I am sorry that the column has offended you. This was neither Catriona’s intention, nor The Herald’s.
Her intention was to use the story about the conviction for “keying” an expensive car as a starting point to write about her views on people who drive expensive, high-performance cars. Her views
that such people tend to drive aggressively and in a disrespectful way – will be shared by some readers but opposed by others.
That is her opinion and she is entitled to express it in a newspaper that believes in free speech and open debate. Her intention was to use the example of “keying” to reinforce her position on such drivers. This she strove to do by making references to “keying” that were intended to be sardonic.
Catriona would never “key” or otherwise vandalise a car. The Herald condones neither action and believes that those convicted of such offences should be punished appropriately by the law.
With the benefit of hindsight, we should all have taken greater care to ensure that the finished article was less intemperate in tone.
We believe in balance as well as tone and, in today’s edition, we published an article by the commentator Andrew McKie that takes issue with Catriona’s views in a clear-headed and intelligent way. In addition, we published on today’s Letters Pages correspondence from three readers who disagree with Catriona. I have attached both in case you have not had the opportunity to read them.
Our intention in publishing Catriona’s article was to stimulate interest and debate. We have certainly done so in this case and I am sorry if you believe this has been the outcome for reasons that are questionable or wrong.
Yours sincerely,
Barclay McBain
Deputy Editor
Herald & Times Group | 200 Renfield St | Glasgow | G2 3QB
Thank you for your comments regarding Catriona Stewart’s column in The Herald of September 11. I am sorry that the column has offended you. This was neither Catriona’s intention, nor The Herald’s.
Her intention was to use the story about the conviction for “keying” an expensive car as a starting point to write about her views on people who drive expensive, high-performance cars. Her views
that such people tend to drive aggressively and in a disrespectful way – will be shared by some readers but opposed by others.
That is her opinion and she is entitled to express it in a newspaper that believes in free speech and open debate. Her intention was to use the example of “keying” to reinforce her position on such drivers. This she strove to do by making references to “keying” that were intended to be sardonic.
Catriona would never “key” or otherwise vandalise a car. The Herald condones neither action and believes that those convicted of such offences should be punished appropriately by the law.
With the benefit of hindsight, we should all have taken greater care to ensure that the finished article was less intemperate in tone.
We believe in balance as well as tone and, in today’s edition, we published an article by the commentator Andrew McKie that takes issue with Catriona’s views in a clear-headed and intelligent way. In addition, we published on today’s Letters Pages correspondence from three readers who disagree with Catriona. I have attached both in case you have not had the opportunity to read them.
Our intention in publishing Catriona’s article was to stimulate interest and debate. We have certainly done so in this case and I am sorry if you believe this has been the outcome for reasons that are questionable or wrong.
Yours sincerely,
Barclay McBain
Deputy Editor
Herald & Times Group | 200 Renfield St | Glasgow | G2 3QB
Cognac
By the seaside...
