‘If you’re angry about the Bristol Post’s apology, then clearly it wasn’t for you’

Yesterday, Bristol Post editor Mike Norton published a public apology for a story the newspaper ran in 1996 headlined ‘Faces of Evil’ where it featured the mugshots of 16 black men who were convicted of selling crack in Bristol.

Looking at it now, it’s quite shocking. But then again, for the editor of the (then) Evening Post, I guess that was the probably point.

Norton based his apology on the fact that “the effect of that page was so powerful that it offended and ostracised a large section of the community. So much so, that it continues to do so.”

His lengthy apology is a powerful statement and shows that he is open to starting a conversation about the paper’s painful legacy with the hope of making amends.

Although I respect Norton for apologising for an article that was published nine years prior to his position started at the Post, many do not share my view.

Having read the comments under his apology online, I was saddened to see how much opposition there was from Post readers online. Like Norton had predicted, many of them labelled him a ‘snowflake’ and seemed unhappy about the fact that he was apologising for an article about criminals, arguing that he was making it about race when it wasn’t.

I think the bad feelings are based on the misconception that this apology is solely about the article and the criminals in it.

But, let’s be real, it runs deeper than that.

Yes, it is true that the presentation and the context of the article makes it deeply significant and symbolic, but I think the apology represents more than that.

There is a legacy there. There needs to be recognition of the hurt and pain caused to those in the Afro-Caribbean community who already had a strained relationship with the newspaper before the article was published over two decades ago.

There needs to be the acknowledgment of the role that these institutions, such as the Post, play in upholding damaging perceptions of marginalised communities. This apology, 22 years on, is a great place to start and hopefully it will enable some of those difficult conversations to take place.

To those who are angry about the apology or felt it was unnecessary, it isn’t about you – nor is it really about the criminals featured in the article.

It’s for the people who already felt alienated from the Bristol Evening Post, and for them, the original article would have been a brutal example of how the Post didn’t work to serve their community positively. It’s an apology about effectively failing the needs of a community.

Is the apology genuine? I would like to hope so, but for Norton’s words to really matter, he has to back it up.

There has to be more than just an apology, there needs to be action. In order to hold these institutions accountable, they need to be open to the community and reflect the readership they wish to attract.

Every newspaper has a social responsibility to reflect the city it serves and if you think the Bristol Post does that, then maybe this apology wasn’t for you.

Euella Jackson is a freelance writer and content creator, and part of Rife Magazine alumni based at the Watershed