The story that continues to dominate here in the UK is the aftermath of the Danish publication of a cartoon that has offended many Muslims worldwide. I’m not going to talk here about the specific issues and doubtless you have your own opinions on the matter. Instead, this blog focuses on the response of the media and what this can teach us about their more general role in society.
The media, especially the local media, exist by creating the illusion that they are working for us – that they provide some kind of public service of truth seeking or are a vanguard for our democractic-rights. They tell us what’s important and what we need to know.
My local newspaper is the Yorkshire Evening Post (YEP). Founded in 1890, Yorkshire's largest circulating evening newspaper has been dedicated to serving the people of Leeds and surrounding districts for well over 100 years. They'd love you to believe this.
While this may have been true 100 years ago (though I doubt it) the paper has since been bought over by Johnstons Press Plc. If we take the perspective that in order to ‘serve’ someone you must make yourself accountable to them, then ultimately the only people the YEP 'serves' are the shareholders of Johnston.
So how do they do this? The common sense answer would be ‘by selling lots of newspapers’ but a brief look at Johnston Press 2004 Annual Report will reveal that sales account for only about 13% of their total revenue (69.6m of 518.8m). By contrast, 76% (394.4m) of this revenue comes from advertising. The ‘North region’ (of which YEP is a part) incidentally is the largest generator of total revenue accounting for 23%.
So, one could say that the role of the YEP is to provide a forum for the businesses of Leeds to market themselves to the people of Leeds. The more successful they are in doing this the more revenue they receive and the more share prices go up.
As a reader and inhabitant of Leeds, it is still possible to make a contribution as the YEP runs a daily letters page. However, you are limited to 300 words and they reserve the right to edit if for legal or ‘other reasons’.
Now, before you start calling me a naive idealist, I am not suggesting that there is anything ‘wrong’ with this arrangement per say. I realise that the interests of the business and people of Leeds can and do overlap to a great extent and that it is possible to serve both of them to some degree.
However, just as if the spokesperson for Nike made all their press briefings in a ‘we the people’ tone implying their interests were the same as ours, we would not accept this de facto; neither should we accept similar claims from the media. The YEP is a corporation and having a local name and local reports doesn't make it any less of one.
So, it was with regard to this latest 'Islamic driven human-rights crisis' that I saw an interesting piece in my local paper which I believe provides a good example of what I’ll call the ‘comrade media'. You can read it here.
I have composed an open reply to the Pickle article which you can read below. I was considering sending it to the letters page but since it weighs in at a whopping 622 words I suspect it would be butchered and its context lost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Pickles is a worthy champion of the rights of free speech but before we chorus her indignation against those who refuse to use these rights 'wisely and carefully' it may be worth asking who actually gets to enjoy all of the freedoms she defends and who it is that is really undermining them?
There exist many differences between our rights on paper and our rights in practice. In this country, we are fortunate that we can say what we want (at least at the present time) regardless of our race or religion. Despite recent restrictions on 'racial hatred' (and I'm sure for most of us the 'right to be racist' is one we would happily concede) we should never allow ourselves to forget how unique these rights are, especially from a global perspective, or be willing to give up the entitlements that our ancestors fought for.
However, all is not entirely rosy in this country with regard to freedom of expression. Should you wish to extend its range by talking to a greater audience then perhaps a loudspeaker or pamphleteering would allow, it is then you notice how unequally this right is distributed.
Most of do not command a regular, thousand-word opinion piece in our local paper and, while we have the theoretical right to communicate to others around our region and beyond, we may lack the practical means of doing so in terms of time, money, occupation, qualifications and so on. It's the difference between the having the right to own a property and being able to afford to buy a house.
Whilever access to such positions of influence is unequally distributed in our society, it becomes the job of media establishments to ensure their reporting is in the public interest. If certain foreign newspapers choose to abuse this power by commissioning dubious, inflammatory illustrations we can ask 'In whose interests are these being shown?' but we have to accept that there is (at present) little we as British citizens can do about it – the jurisdiction of bodies such as Press Complaints Commission ends firmly on this side of the North Sea.
It doesn’t surprise me that certain individuals will use this issue as an excuse to press their personal agendas or effect diplomatic relations with other countries. However, in order to do this they must have known that the most direct route to a front page or news headline in this country is by being radical or offensive (in this case both) and it’s a tactic has once again proven successful. While I congratulate the decision not to reprint the original offensive material, I would suggest that the media in this country have contributed to this 'crisis' by giving such people the coverage they crave.
The media abroad may wish to continue a war of words and images with radical Islam, but I fail to understand why the British public should be caught in the firing line or why our rights should ever be the casualties of such a conflict.
All this should impress upon us the importance of true democratically accountable media in this country and beyond. Rather then suggesting we should 'watch our own words' these institutions should be looking inwards and ensuring they are accountable for what they print and broadcast. Reading Ms Pickles’ article, the line between ‘concerned citizen’ and ‘industry spokesperson’ is often a blurred one and the ‘we’ to which she refers is unclear.
If Ms Pickles is implying that the British public at large are abusing their right of free speech then I would dispute this vigorously. However, if her piece is a call to her media colleagues to take greater responsibility for their work, then it’s a charge I wholly welcome .
