The Sun's apology will cut no ice with many Liverpudlians - and with good
reason

'It is time to move on' according to the Sun, following widespread criticism
of the paper's interview deal with Everton striker Wayne Rooney. Rooney has
suffered abuse for his deal with the newspaper, infamous for its reporting
of the Hillsborough disaster. The Sun has again apologised for its 'The
Truth' story, made a few short days after the disaster that eventually
claimed 96 lives. Yet my feeling is that the Sun's apology will not cut
much ice with those on Merseyside.

One could argue that it is rather unfair for Liverpudlians to chastise Rooney
directly,a gifted 18-year old footballer to whom a slice of Becks style coverage
in a tabloid daily is very flattering. It is nonetheless understandable why there
has been so much fury at the deal Rooney has cut, and there is no reason why
The Sun should have expected anything less (Graham Souness received a
similar amount of misapprobation when he spoke to the Sun in a 1992
exclusive). The Sun stated in its editorial on July 7th that it is has
apologised in the past for its reporting of the disaster, and that it has no
hesitation in apologising again. However, such apparent contrition is only
window dressing when there is no analysis provided on how their dreadful
'The Truth' story did more to set back the cause of justice than perhaps any
other single event in the aftermath of the disaster.

'The Truth' was, ultimately, one of the most mendacious pieces of journalism
ever committed to print. The piece reported that fans urinated on police
attempting resuscitation. It brazenly stated that Liverpool fans raided the
pockets of injured and dead fans. It reported that Liverpool fans leered at
the exposed breasts of a female fan who had been mortally injured in the
crush. It referred to the Liverpool fans as being a drunken, seething mass.
And, crucially, it reported these unsubstantiated allegations as fact. This
appalling journalism (if such a tag can be applied), was not just a slight
slip-up that a simple 'hands up, Guv' apology will ameliorate.

96 Liverpool families travelled to Sheffield for inquests on their lost
loved ones with the full knowledge that Britain's best-selling newspaper had
effectively criminalised them. One would like to suppose that our legal
system would remain largely untainted by the sweeping statements of a
tabloid newspaper looking to sensationalise an already emotive event. But
then, one tends to underestimate the power of the media in shaping popular
attitudes, amplified when a few handy regional stereotypes are there to peg
a fellacious story on. In the courtroom, stereotypes were again intrinsic to
the way that the inquests were steered. Fans were described by several
police officers as an uncontrollable mass, only intent on gaining entry to
the ground to watch an FA Cup semi-final. Tellingly, blood alcohol levels
were referred to at length at the inquests, an unprecedented move that no
doubt was influenced by the kind of reporting that the Sun pushed as
'truth'. The reporting that was made by The Sun became commonsensical, and
hence public figures who were largely unqualified to speak on the events at
Hillsborough were faithfully given column space - from Bernard Ingham (who
referred to 'a tanked up mob' as being to blame) to Brian Clough, the
overwhelming negative statements concerning the events at Hillsborough and
those about Liverpool residents were faithfully relayed. Granted, the Sun
did not report many of these statements themselves, but it was largely
responsible for promulgating an environment where mythic assumptions around
the disaster and the city could be played out, and rehearsed as fact. 15
years later, the families of the Hillsborough dead have still not received
the justice (and the full and comprehensive inquest) they so deserve, and to
a large extent because of the powerful outside pressures that infiltrated
the courtroom and affected the decision making processes made therein.

The Sun states in its editorial 'The Sun of 2004 no more deserves to be
hated on Merseyside than Wayne Rooney does'. Such bleating shows the Sun
does in fact not care about the Hillsborough families one jot, and only
illustrates that it has failed to grasp the depth of hatred that exists on
Merseyside for the effects that its false reporting provoked. The Sun
conveniently plugged into a set of assumptions about the behaviour of both
football fans and Liverpudlians, and with those assumptions helped engineer
an untruthful dominant ideology that, left unchecked, caused immense hurt
and suffering. For the Sun to give a mawkish apology behind the image of a
football prodigy is a further insult to the Hillsborough families. In 2004,
the newspaper seems to have forgotten that the hundreds of families torn
apart by the Sun's abhorrent reporting 15 years ago had nothing to hide
behind. The Sun stole the innocence of those killed or injured at
Hillsborough.

But above all this, The Sun obviously feels it has paid for its mistake. Its
editorial states that 15 years is a long time - nine years longer than the
Second World War. To which the people of Merseyside will say - 15 years is a
hell of a long time without justice. For The Sun to say that the old staff
have cleared their desks and that now there are new faces at the paper
betrays a failure of understanding that the disaster's aftermath has on
Merseyside, and thus makes the latest apology distinctly hollow.

In short, The Sun needs to offer more than an apology in the tone of a
petulant child that feels that its after-school detention is up. It must now
step forward and demonstrate a full understanding of the real events of the
disaster and its aftermath, from its own journalistic failings to the
mendacity and evasiveness of South Yorkshire Police. A full and truthful
context must be given to The Sun's readership. The 96 innocents who never
came home from a football match deserve nothing less.