It’s not about the truth
You have probably read by now the tale of Sue Reid's appallingly misleading and woefully inaccurate story regarding births at a London hospital. Tim at Mailwatch offers a letter to Daily Mail readers while 5cc does an excellent demolition job, and Uponnothing says Paul Dacre must die.
Reid, of course, has previous. Back in 2007 she offered money to Polish people to break the law, so she could write a story about Polish people breaking the law. The knowledge that a journalist could stoop so low didn't stop newspapers from publishing her articles, of course. Perhaps it was with a teenager's 'meh' shrug or a thought of 'There but for the grace of God...' that potential publishers looked the other way and pretended they hadn't seen anything wrong. This isn't about Reid, though, and it would be wrong to demonise one journalist. It's not the writers who decide what goes in the paper - those decisions are made above their pay grade.
But it's not about the truth. Journalism, at the level of the tabloids and even the 'quality press' from time to time, is about finding a convincing 'line'. If you can find a way of portraying a version of the truth in which a London hospital is swamped by foreigners and no British mums are giving birth there, and that chimes in with a newspaper's record of reporting immigration as a scary, overwhelming thing that's out of control, then that will do. But is it true? I doubt anyone even asked. It doesn't matter.
It's not about the truth. It's about a version of the truth that you can stack up for a few paragraphs, maybe with a supporting quote from someone who'll definitely agree with you (and that tedious business of getting a 'response', yawn yawn, which might contradict your story altogether but which you shove right at the end in the hope your readers won't get that far and will be convinced that what you've told them is what's actually the case.) In the case of the Sue Reid story, the response from the hospital is, I'd have thought, rather more important than something that should be bolted on to the end. Because it kind of contradicts quite a lot of what has been previously stated as a fact.
But no. It's not about the truth, or balance, or fairness, or accuracy. It's not about representing things as accurately as you can. It's about dancing around all of that to make your line as impactful as possible. Yes, you must try to get a response from people about whom you tell a pack of lies, so they've had a 'right of reply' - and if it appears to torpedo what you've written so far? Ah well. Just bung it on at the end and leave everything you've written intact.
It's never about the truth, and it's not quite about fiction. It's about painting the ghost-train so it scares you the most. It's about representing a version of reality in which your worst fears come true - in the case of the Daily Mail, it would appear to have decided that its readers' worst fears consist of immigrants and foreign people. I don't know what that says about Mail readers - I'm not so sure the readers are really that venomous, despite what you reader underneath stories sometimes - or about the paper itself.
If we assume that it's not trying to tell the truth - a simple FOI request to find out numbers would have provided more accuracy as would listening to what the hospital had to say and putting it in context rather than shoving it at the end of the story - then what is it trying to do? Is it trying to mislead, or scare, or enrage, or what? I think the answer might be that it is trying to tap into people's fears. In the case of its readers, it assumes they are afraid of foreigners and immigrants and so creates a world in which foreigners and immigrants are taking over, everyone is powerless to stop it because of the spectral PC Brigade, and guess who's paying?
I think it also assumes they're afraid of cancer, women having jobs, gay people adopting, technology, the internet, socialism, taxes and a whole host of bogeymen - though foreigners and immigration are pretty high up the list. I don't know if it's right, but I think that's what it's trying to do. If you like, you can look at the Mail as a kind of voluntary participation in Room 101 - all the things you fear are in there. Maybe people read it for the same reason they step into the ghost train or ride the rollercoaster or watch a horror movie - you can be confronted with your fears, and see them off, and then return to normal life. That is, if you understand you're being misled and suspending your disbelief.
What if people really believe it? What then?
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- The power of publicity
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- emmaspen on Children died
- emma on The letters you never get around to sending
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
November 27th, 2009 - 09:59
What is it trying to do? Well, increasingly it looks like it's trying to be the recruitment sergeant for the BNP. And looking at the readers' comments on most of the original articles you write about, it's working.
The Daily Mail is becoming seriously socially irresponsible, but I don't know what can be done about it.
November 27th, 2009 - 10:01
I don't want to sound trite but this has been going on for years and years. It's called a "moral panic" and is, as you point out, quite ephemeral, quite complex and about creating sustainable narratives aligned to a certain perspective. This perspective is also cleverly constructed to appear "natural" making it harder to debunk.
The media have been doing this shit for years and years now.
There's a great book written about such things are constructed called Policing the Crisis (by Stuart Hall et al). It's about the moral panic created around "black muggers" in the 1970s. It's quite academic and has tons of research but really pulls apart the whole way this kind of shit is put together.
November 27th, 2009 - 10:09
As is usual with these sorts of stories, the comments are a hoot. If you are pressed for time I'd recommend a quick glance at the highest-rated comments. The Daily Mail really is a sponge for all the miserable, disaffected and hateful people in this country.
November 27th, 2009 - 10:14
Perhaps someone with greater experience in the computer graphics and photography field can shed some light on this:
The image presented in the Daily Mail report is clearly not the original image. Therefore it must be a recreation, no? If this is the case, then how can we be sure that it has not been 'enhanced' in some way? Why can't we see the original photograph to compare?
November 27th, 2009 - 10:37
Nobody ever went broke reinforcing people's prejudices – especially as a way to recruit them into their 'cause', whether that involves frightened masses lending their support, hard work or money.
For a really decent explanation of authoritarian tactics of this sort, as it is manifested in republicanism, journalism or religion(ism), see the excellent online book 'The Authoritarians' by Prof Bob Altemeyer:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
In the end, The Daily Mail just wants to continue being The Daily Mail: it's found a niche that works, and they're all too appalling to abandon it for something that might work less well (and sell fewer copies) such as 'giving a shit about the truth'.
November 27th, 2009 - 16:36
I think they're trying to sell newspapers based on fear.
November 27th, 2009 - 17:46
12 of my 33 scouts have foreign born parents and I have a 2 year waiting list. I wonder if Sue Reid thinks I should kick them out in favour of "indigenous" kids?