Journopig looks at what the media writes about, how it does it, and why.
February 8, 2010
General Election 2010: The Polls (And Media) That Ignore Half The Population
Well, the General Election still hasn’t been called, but The Observer has already published a pointless report on the voters in marginal seats who may (or may not) determine the result of the election.
And according to its headline, it’s one group of men who will have the important role. Only… it isn’t.
Look at the headline used in the piece:
“Motorway Man holds key to general election victory.”
We assumed this meant white van man, or any man who uses a motorway, being the key voters. And we couldn’t understand why women who use the motorway system weren’t so important.
We looked at the sub-head for clues:
“Key voters in marginal seats live near motorway networks and are young, childless and in negative equity, say pollsters.”
Again, we couldn’t quite see why it was only men living in these circumstances who were the important ones. Would women in the same situation vote completely differently?
But then we realised that “Motorway Man” is a meaningless term coined by some people trying to drum up publicity for their research. “Motorway Woman”? Not alliterative. “Motorway People”? Too boring. “Motorway Man”? Perfect! Like Neanderthal Man! Only, um, not.
We’re a bit cross with The Observer for repeating this stupid phrase, and for having it as their headline. It puts the focus on men, and implies that it is men who will determine the election result. Yet if you read the article, it’s clear that this is not the case.
Home Affairs Editor Jamie Doward’s article blames the credit rating company Experian for coining what he calls a “catch-all” name. But it doesn’t “catch all”. It omits half the population in its name.
The articles ties together research, carried out for Experian by YouGov, with a separate database of the population, Mosaic, run by an academic from King’s College London. The database identifies the type of person who is the key voter in the upcoming election; the Experian/YouGov research simply seems to try and assess what party that key person would vote for.
The KCL academic makes it clear that the key voters are:
“couples who live near motorway junctions”
Couples. That’s men AND women – not just men.
It looks like Experian might have coined the phrase “Motorway Man” as a handy headline for a press release promoting its poll.
What a shame that The Observer chose to repeat this erroneous phrase in its headline, rather than question its meaning.
February 6, 2010
Brittany Murphy: Hollywood Excess Or A Death More Ordinary?
The premature death of actress Brittany Murphy at the age of 32 continues to give the British media something to write about.
Actually, there isn’t so much to write about, but that isn’t stopping the media trying.
“Brittany Murphy Died After Drugs Cocktail”
- shouted Sky News after the coroner’s report was issued this week. The sub-head was:
“Actress Brittany Murphy died after taking a cocktail of prescription drugs, a US coroner has said”
- and the first line of the main article again reiterated the cause of death as being drugs:
“The star had taken ‘multiple’ prescription medications before collapsing…”
But this wasn’t the main cause of death. That was the far less salacious pneumonia. And drugs weren’t the only secondary cause. That honour went also to iron-deficiency anaemia.
But this was not the emphasis of the Sky News piece. Only in the second paragraph did the other causes get whispered:
“The primary cause of death was pneumonia, with iron-deficiency anaemia being a secondary factor, along with drug intoxication.”
Sky then focused again on the drugs – what were they? When will we be told?
This was in sharp contrast to BBC News’ coverage of the coroner’s report. This clearly said in the headline that the cause of death was pneumonia, and focused on the coroner stating his belief that the actress could have survived if she had gone to a doctor.
(An aside, though – the BBC also thought to explain that iron-deficiency anaemia is a form of anaemia “when a person’s diet contains an insufficient amount of iron” – you don’t say?!)
The media loves it if a Hollywood star – or a jobbing actress which, in Murphy’s case, is more accurately the case – dies young. But it also loves to ascribe a sinister cause of death, one that it can use as a lesson to its readers or viewers. The media often likes to think of itself as our moral guardian.
But some parts of the media don’t seem to be able to cope with a more “ordinary” cause of death. Murphy had pneumonia. She thought it was flu, and tried to treat it herself with a variety of prescription medicines. It’s not a conspiracy.
Sadly, this type of coverage is nothing new. When Hollywood star Jean Harlow died suddenly in 1937, aged 26, media commentators were quick to purse their lips and assume her early death was due to what was seen as a fast-living lifestyle involving multiple marriages and affairs. Her image was that of a man-eating siren, and when she died, rumours abounded.
Her actual cause of death was renal failure.
Some parts of today’s media are still unable to see an early death as newsworthy in itself – there must be scandal somewhere. Take Jan Moir’s now infamous Daily Mail article on the death of Stephen Gately, nudging the reader into speculating about his lifestyle, when he died from a pulmonary oedema.
What’s the real moral of the story? That some people will die younger than others, regardless of their fame or status. If they’re famous, their early deaths should be news enough – but some of the media will always think that isn’t the case.
February 2, 2010
Is Countryfile Prejudiced?
Today’s Guardian reports that journalist Miriam O’Reilly is to sue the BBC for sex and age discrimination, after she was dropped from the BBC’s rural affairs programme Countryfile.
When the show was revamped, and moved from its Sunday morning slot to a weekday evening (a mistake in our view), she, along with Juliet Morris, Charlotte Smith and Michaela Strachan were dropped, along with Ben Fogle, and replaced with Julia Bradbury and Matt Baker.
Now, we assumed that the BBC was attempting to attract a larger, younger audience when it moved Countryfile’s slot. Why? Who knows. It was a respected programme, the televisual equivalent of Radio Four’s Farming Today, dealing with issues affecting rural Britain, which are often forgotten by the London-centric media.
It’s not the obvious choice of programme to be sexed up. Although it is presented by John Craven, the thinking woman’s crumpet (second only to Michael Palin, that is).
It was an intelligent programme, especially the pieces presented by Miriam O’Reilly and Charlotte Smith, two good, experienced journalists. As we argued in a post on here yesterday, their age and gender should have been irrelevant – they were good storytellers and suited Countryfile’s style and remit.
The BBC has refuted O’Reilly’s claims of age and gender discrimination by saying that Julia Bradbury and Matt Baker were chosen to present Countryfile:
“Based on their proven successful record in prime-time as presenters and extensive rural knowledge and keen interest in countryside issues.”
But judging by O’Reilly’s and Smith’s experience, they too had a good grasp of rural and countryside issues, and were successful journalists. They came across as both personable yet authoritative.
And the BBC’s claims are further undermined by the fact that they had previously brought in Ben Fogle as a presenter – presumably on the basis that he had experience of countryside issues (by having become well-known as a contestant on a reality programme where he had to live on a Scottish island for a year) and a keen interest in animals (he’s got a dog and has presented Crufts).
They’ve replaced Fogle with Baker – a former Blue Peter (um – not really prime time telly, BBC) and Crufts presenter who owns a dog.
They’ve also replaced the female presenters with Julia Bradbury, who has presented programmes like Wainwright Walks, but who has also presented Watchdog - suggesting that, like with Baker, she is a presenter first, and a rural advocate second.
It is undeniable that both Bradbury and Baker are younger and more photogenic than their predecessors. They may well be mad keen on the country lifestyle – but it is their media ambition that comes across more in the programme. And it has changed the feel of the programme – in a negative way.
Since the revamp, the most authoritative presenter on Countryfile, next to Craven, is the only one whose rural knowledge came before his broadcasting career – Adam Henson, a Cotswold farmer who won a Countryfile competition to help present the programme.
We wish Miriam O’Reilly all the best with her discrimination case, although we think it will be a hard case to win. However, we wish the BBC would take note that sometimes, someone’s experience as a prime time presenter is not the most important thing to consider.
Countryfile worked well in its weekend slot. The move to prime time may have prematurely ended at least one of its presenter’s careers – let’s hope it doesn’t end the success or style of this long running series, one of the few that looks at rural issues sensitively and intelligently.
February 1, 2010
The Guardian Says I’m A Minority. I Beg To Differ.
We were interested to read in today’s Guardian about a new workshop the newspaper is holding to encourage writers from a minority background.
Joseph Harker, on page 2 of the Media section, writes about why the Guardian has organised this workshop, stating that he wished the media better represented Britain’s population and:
“That whether you are working class, gay, black, Asian, disabled, Muslim, old, young or a woman, you felt your views and experiences had a proper outlet.”
Um – hang on a second. The old, the young, and women – these are all “minorities”? In fact, the majority of the British population seems to be covered here, apart from white middle-aged males. Harker states that the media is still:
“led by an elite that is male, from the home counties and private school/Oxbridge-educated”
- although, given that he thinks the young and old are minorities, we were surprised he didn’t add the average age of this elite.
Being a bit perturbed that one Guardian writer sees all these groups of people as minorities, we explored the Guardian’s workshop webpage.
It clearly states that you can apply for the workshop if:
“You belong to a minority group through your ethnicity, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief.”
Now, we’re sorry, but one half of us is apparently in a minority group because of her gender. Only this fact seems to have utterly escaped her.
Journopig One is a writer – and wonders whether, in assigning her gender as a minority group that needs encouraging, the Guardian has made a somewhat retrogressive step.
Some of our favourite Guardian writers are women, but we’ve never thought, “Oh, well done them for getting published in the Guardian!” Their gender is irrelevant.
All we want to read is good journalism from good journalists, regardless of their “minority group”. Some writing is done by the male “elite”, but the writer doesn’t matter – it’s their writing that does.
In addition, as far as we’re aware, nobody has ever questioned Journopig One’s gender when she’s been pitching for work, or not commissioned her on that basis.
We’re more concerned with the fact that the media is always keen to commission writers based on their celebrity rather than on any discernible talent, and seems to commission from an ever decreasing circle of “known” writers or celebs, to keep their sales as high as they can.
And we’re concerned with the slashing of freelance budgets by many publications, and the lack of flexibility when advertising staff jobs, which doesn’t make it easy for those with childcare responsibilities to apply, and therefore possibly discourages some women from applying for these roles (the average jobbing journo’s salary not being great, as opposed to childcare costs).
It doesn’t matter what “minority group” you may be from, if the media continues to focus on a limited number of established journalists (or the dreaded celeb writers), your chances of getting commissioned by the likes of the Guardian remain small.
A workshop that assigns you a label and assumes that if you’re a woman, you need help on how “to discuss how to approach commissioning editors with ideas” is not going to help.
Getting your commissioning editors to accept work from people regardless of their background would be good. Looking at what might be stopping various people from writing for you would be good – rather than grouping a load of diverse people together and assuming they all have the same reasons for not having come to you.
So why not just run a workshop for your editors to encourage them to be more open, rather than focus on it being the majority who are, apparently, in a minority that are the “problem”?
January 30, 2010
The 2010 General Election: The Mirror Predicts A Labour Win. Or Not.
Most unsurprising prediction (so far) for the result of the General Election – which of course hasn’t even been called yet – goes to the Labour-supporting Daily Mirror.
In today’s edition, we have the headline:
“Gordon Brown likely to win general election if there is a high turnout, poll says.”
A couple of points about this headline.
Firstly, it’s hardly news that the Mirror wants to focus on any poll that reckons Labour will win. It’s like the Sun publishing a headline that says “Rupert Murdoch is ace – a poll of Murdoch children says.”
Secondly, there’s an incredible supposition being made here. A high turnout? In British politics? OK, it’s a General Election, not a local council one where the area’s populace don’t know half the candidates, probably didn’t know the election was on, and if they did, couldn’t tell you what the point of it was or what their councillors actually do.
But assuming a high turnout even for a General Election makes us raise our collective eyebrow. We need to abolish the British trait of political apathy, stop the equally British trait of complaining about the current situation whilst refusing to do anything to change it (like, um, voting), and have the political parties coming up with campaigns that grab our interest and attention.
And looking at the Mirror’s figures, it’s a bit confusing what the poll actually says.
The Mirror says that “the Conservatives are still ahead” although Labour’s rating is up a bit. But these stats are based on the:
“52% of people who say they are ‘certain to vote’”.
Who are these “people”? Has the whole of the electorate been polled? It could be 52% of 50. The article doesn’t say how many people were polled, or who they were.
But bearing in mind the poll was an “exclusive” one commissioned by the Mirror (carried out by Ipsos MORI), you do wonder about its partiality.
And one line in particular had us a bit confused – despite one of us having a degree in politics:
“Labour would take more seats if 78% of the electorate turn out to vote because a higher proportion would be Labour supporters.”
Mind you, if 78% of the electorate made it to the polling booths, that would be news worth reporting.
In fact, based on the views of those polled, the result of an election would actually be a hung parliament.
January 29, 2010
Peter Andre And 3am: Exposing Who Really Controls The Media
Our favourite media story this week has been the spat between the Mirror’s 3am team, and the management team who deal with Peter Andre.
The story started with Peter Andre inexplicably becoming an ambassador for Costa Coffee (who says his career is third-rate?!) and journos being duly invited to witness Mr Andre making a cup of coffee and having a five minute chat with him.
Now, in our eyes, this wouldn’t be something that we would dash to do anyway, or something that we’d consider news.
But Andre’s management team, CAN Associates, obviously thought it was a great thing for him to do, and that national newspapers would be desperate for a snap of the cheesy singer getting to grips with coffee, milk and water.
So they submitted a list of demands to the media – basically wanting journos to agree to write positive pieces, with positive captions and no mention of anything a) negative or b) featuring the letters J, O, R, D, A, and N.
Basically – copy approval, taken to the nth degree. Newspapers and websites had to submit their completed stories for approval, and if they weren’t 100% glowing, they weren’t allowed to use them.
So fair play to the 3am website, which decided not to play ball. In fact, their reporters went one better and detailed the absurd demands made on them, and explained why they had decided not to cover the event. See their report here.
The agents and managers of “celebs” often try to dictate what the media should say about their clients – and we understand why they try. They want to depict their client in the best possible light.
But things are getting increasingly silly – take the case of the ubiquitous Myleene Klass, whose apparent bravery in waving a knife at someone from her kitchen turned out to be fed to the papers by her agent – according to The Guardian’s Marina Hyde. Myleene, rather than call the police about a potential intruder, may have called her agent first, who then saw notifying the media as equally important as calling the police.
So we like instances where the attempt to dictate what the media reports is laid bare.
In the case of Peter Andre, it also exposed some of those reporters who are willing to lie down and write what managers want them to write. The Sun’s Nadia Mendoza had none of the 3am girls’ concerns – and wrote the story that CAN Associates wanted her to write.
How sad that some reporters will do anything for a cup of coffee – even abandon journalistic principles.
January 28, 2010
Unnatural Coverage Of A Death
The nation’s obsession with fame and celebrity is a disturbing thing, but including a story in a local newspaper not once but three times, just because there is a tenuous link to someone famous, is surely taking things a step too far.
But the Gazette & Herald in Wiltshire (or rather, the “Chippenham, Calne, Corsham, Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett edition” as the copy we read was concisely subtitled) of 21 January thinks that you can’t have enough of a good thing.
At the bottom of the front page is a story titled “Princess among mourners”, with a picture of the Princess Royal – who, in our experience, very few people get excited by. It’s a piece about the funeral of Rosemary Parker-Bowles, who, the Gazette & Herald is keen to point out, was:
“the second wife of Brig [sic] Andrew Parker-Bowles, whose first wife was Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.”
The story on the front page is convoluted, and it seems that Mrs Parker-Bowles is sadly just the peg for a story about the Royals.
The unfortunate story placement on the front page means that above this story about a death and a funeral is the main story about struggling Wiltshire businesses that not only mentions businesses “dying” but twice says it is “the final nail in the coffin”. Very unfortunate.
Anyway, a story about the death of someone who isn’t famous or well-known, apart from being the second wife of someone whose first wife is well-known isn’t news. The fact that a Royal attended a funeral isn’t news. That’s happened before.
But the Gazette & Herald not only does a piece on the front page, but then states: “Full story: page 11″.
The story then takes up most of page 11, including a picture of Princess Anne at the funeral; a pcture of Andrew Parker-Bowles at the funeral; and a very fuzzy, smaller, photo of the deceased Mrs Parker-Bowles, which seems to have been lifted from the order of service.
The headline is:
“Princess Joins Family Service”
- which makes it clear why the Gazette thinks this story is important. Basically, a Royal was in Malmesbury.
But this coverage is STILL not enough. At the bottom of the page 11 story:
“Obituary: Page 51″
On page 51, just over a column is devoted to Mrs Parker-Bowles’ obituary. Although trained as a garden designer, she was not famous for this, so the obituary focuses on who her husband was, her father’s achievements, and her step-daughter…Camilla’s daughter (providing an excuse to mention Camilla’s name again).
Now, the obituary page contains details of three other local women who had died recently. Their lives were no more or less interesting than Mrs Parker-Bowles, in our view. The coverage of the latter’s funeral was over-the-top, and did not need three separate mentions in the paper.
Not to mention that to focus on who this woman’s husband’s former wife was is to demean Mrs Parker-Bowles’ own life and achievements.
In today’s society, it seems an antiquated decision to give so much attention to Princess Anne and the Duchess of Cornwall in a local paper. Especially when there’s no news regarding Camilla; and all Anne has done is go to the funeral of someone she knew.
But it seems the Gazette & Herald’s newshound is a different breed to ours.
January 26, 2010
Never Copy Jimmy Savile – It Will End In Tears.
Weather presenter Gail Force. Newsreader Arthur Sleep (say it quickly). Reptile expert Anna Conda.
All characters created by the ubiquitous CBeebies stalwart, Justin Fletcher, MBE (he’s got an MBE so therefore must appear on as many programmes as possible, his honour conferring a dignity and respectability. Or something) on his mirth-free programme, Gigglebiz.
Justin specialises – if that’s the right word – in playing gormless characters who all appear to have, um, problems living in society. So there’s Captain Adorable, an incredibly un-adorable superhero who seems incapable of listening to anyone; the pet shop owner who doesn’t want to sell the pets, and is just plain creepy; and Anna Conda, the inevitable “ugly” woman (the ugliness depicted by wearing thick glasses).
It’s supposed to be a comedy show aimed at pre-schoolers. Quite what they make of the harpsichord music used for a sketch showing a king being “rebellious” by wearing colourful sneakers is anyone’s guess.
Now, we know we’re not quite the programme’s target audience, so it is not surprising that we think the show is the most unfunny thing we’ve ever seen, using crap stereotypes and gurning instead of humour.
Today’s episode was only made better by the fact that one scene seemed to have been filmed at Portmeirion, which is a lovely place. Journopig One went there on a work away-day once, after walking up Snowdon first – like you do. One of her colleagues walked up the mountain in her high heels, and then moaned all the way round Portmeirion, and all the way back to London on the coach. Daft woman.
But enough reminiscing – for the moment. We just thought it was a shame that the beauty of Portmeirion was spoiled by having Captain Adorable mugging for the camera there.
But what we – 30-somethings who were brought up on Jim’ll Fix It – really objected to was a scene that shamelessly ripped off the iconic Jim’ll Fix It moment where two young boys go on a rollercoaster whilst attempting to eat their lunches.
Justin – also of the age to have watched Mr Savile – did a version on a pre-schoolers’ theme park train ride, whilst eating crisps from his lunchbox.
It seemed a bit pointless referencing a decades-old programme in a teenies’ comedy show. They wouldn’t have got the reference. And if it was aimed at the parents watching, that was pointless too, as we reckon most would have been like us and muttered that we’d rather have watched a repeat of Jim’ll Fix It instead.
January 25, 2010
Channel 4 And Maverick: Wrong On So Many Counts
Now, you’d think that with all the debate over the BBC’s website – critics arguing that it is too large, and covers areas that should be left to competitors, whilst DG Mark Thompson acknowledges that it should be cut back – other television channels would look at the situation and learn from it.
We’re thinking of Channel 4, which some want to benefit from the TV licence, top-slicing it and effectively making the channel another one funded by the licence fee payer.
So we were surprised to see a job advert – on Gorkana - for a “Channel 4 fashion and beauty website”. The job details the new website:
“Targeted at 25-45 year old women, and sitting alongside market-leading and award-winning lifestyle sites 4Homes and 4Food, the new site will cover fashion, beauty and wellbeing.”
This is obviously part of a television channel’s remit – to tell women what to wear.
We object to this job ad for two reasons.
Firstly, we’d like British television channels to concentrate on making decent, original programming. Instead, the desire to make money at any cost means that programmes seem to be commissioned purely on the strength of what merchandising can be sold on the back of them, or what adverts can be sold around them.
Secondly, we object to an ad that states:
“Backed by a portfolio of home-grown, female-skewed programmes – including How to Look Good Naked, 10 Years Younger and Gok’s Fashion Fix, alongside the likes of Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty – the new website will offer practical fashion and beauty advice and editorial to suit every lifestyle, body shape and budget.”
Now, Journopig One is in the target market for these programmes. However, she watches none of the above programmes and isn’t remotely interested in “practical fashion and beauty advice” from the likes of Gok “Girlfriend!” Wan. “Female skewed”? Pur-lease.
The ad assumes that this is what all women want. Stereotyping at its best.
It comes as no surprise that the job is for someone who can work “with commercial and advertising sales department” – hey, this website isn’t to inform you girls – it’s to try and flog stuff to you!
The job is based with Maverick Television, which also makes us uncomfortable. This company makes programmes such as Gok Wan’s How To Look Good Naked and 10 Years Younger.
Maverick is NOT Channel 4, even if it is responsible for a website that will be run under the channel’s branding. However, it is using the channel’s name predominantly, with its own name far down the advert. It wants Channel 4’s respectability for a website that the channel shouldn’t even be thinking of setting up.
There are a lot of people and companies who could – if they haven’t already – set up a beauty and wellbeing site such as this (and hopefully target it in a less stereotyped way). But we’re not sure that a television channel – especially one that sees itself as the BBC’s equal – should be copying the Beeb’s mistakes and forgetting its core industry.
