What do Jimmy Carr, Carrie Johnson, Gloria Gaynor, Jimmy Savile, a bag of crisps and Kurt Zouma have in common? In the last week or so they have all been headline news in journals or top billing on TV News. The other thing is perhaps that the stories around them are banal, insignificant or used to pursue a wider agenda. They may illustrate too perhaps a warped perspective about news events among those responsible for publishing them. Do editors who prioritise the level of attention given to events need to recalibrate their selection criteria?
BAD TASTE JOKES ARE NOT NEWS
Jimmy Carr made a joke about the holocaust: a dangerous subject not amenable to laughs. Maybe he made a misjudgement, and it was for some at least bad taste. The stock in trade of many great comics is human behaviour, tragedy, disaster and so on. Perhaps he went too far. In the past, for those who did not laugh, this would be regarded as a bad joke or in bad taste, the man having got it wrong. Yet as a story it continued for days as a seeming real issue for the world: it is surely not and for many it will have been a complete irrelevance. Some say this is the end of his comic life. Surely not. Does not a sensible world just dismiss with disdain a mistake like this and forget it? Do we not need comedians to shine light on awfulness, risking giving offence, and if offence is caused, for the offended to be offended and move on?
PERSONAL ATTACKS ON CARRIE JOHNSON
Michael Ashcroft took it upon himself to write a biography of Carrie Symonds, now Johnson. A strange subject for a Tory billionaire possibly motivated by personal prejudice? It evidently draws on anecdotes and opinion from enemies of her husband, Boris Johnson, or even of Carrie herself. There is a lobby which wants to portray Carrie Johnson as pulling the strings on Downing Street decisions. While it would be surprising if the Prime Minister does not share the weight of decision-making with his spouse, and indeed listen to her counsel, almost universally the book has been condemned as simply a backdoor way of attacking the Prime Minister himself. Labour politicians talk it down as nonsense, concerned it may take responsibility for perceived bad behaviour away from Boris Johnson for what may be alleged bad things. It is politicised because that is its origin, an attempt to discredit the Prime Minister and his wife. Nothing wrong with political attack, but this barely merits a line in the news. Others have boarded the misogyny bandwagon and branded it misogynistic. And why is it misogyny, a hatred of women generally, when it is so obviously personal acrimony? The misogyny label is becoming overused and misapplied in the rush to give things headline branding. Is it not time to stop labelling as misogyny any action or words which may offend?
GLORIA GAYNOR
The new head of comms for the PM, Guto Harri, started his new job with a playful description of an exchange with Boris Johnson involving a rendition of Gloria Gaynor’s 1970’s iconic “I WILL SURVIVE” when questioning whether he had a future as the PM.
Even this bit of amusing repartee managed to get some raising grave concerns that it undermined the need for Boris Johnson to be seen as more serious and was turned into a news story as if it mattered!
THE MERE MENTION OF JIMMY SAVILE CREATES OUTRAGE – OVERREACTION?
Boris Johnson quipped in Parliament that Keir Starmer spent his time as DPP “prosecuting journalists, not prosecuting Jimmy Savile”, whereas Keir Starmer had merely years ago apologised for his department’s performance on the case. The mere mention of Jimmy Savile caused outrage. This was a smear in perhaps bad or, some may say, very bad taste. Boris Johnson clarified what he meant but made no apology, and of course the demand for apology is the first port of call whenever an action is questioned. And it was right that, as the boss, Keir Starmer long ago took it upon himself to apologise for the DPP’s failings, albeit he was not personally responsible for their approach to the Jimmy Savile case. But is not smearing opponents what politicians have done forever? That may not be dignified or desirable, but for that reason smears are largely ignored by a discerning public perhaps.
Opinion is presented as fact all the time. Is not Boris Johnson smeared regularly for simply having been married more than once and having lots of children? And next, this one remark, a mere barb which would have been of no consequence if the press and broadcasters had not kept repeating it time and again, was made into a cause celebre, and cited as the reason that the rent – a -mob assailed Keir Starmer in Westminster. It obviously was not a significant reason This was made into news for days, with regular questioning of Ministers as to their view on the appropriateness of the remark. Maybe it would be best if politicians and others stopped cheap jibes, and, failing that, it would certainly be better if they were consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.
THE QUIZ NIGHT PHOTO GETS TOP NEWS BILLING
Savile did not dominate the news. Things emerged later in the week which editors deemed of greater significance. On 9 February SKYNEWS had as its top evening news story a new photo which the Daily Mirror had unearthed, including Boris Johnson and two colleagues on the Downing Street Christmas quiz night, suggesting it to be a final nail in the coffin of lockdown-breaking parties. The new evidence of a party to justify such billing was some tinsel, a bag of crisps and a bottle of fizzy wine. That the editor of this news programme prioritised this as of supreme national interest tells a sorry tale of orders of priorities. That editor was far from alone in deciding this was a momentous occasion. Could there be another agenda clouding objectivity?
Meanwhile in the same news programme, at prime time, the breakthrough in nuclear fusion made at Culham, Oxford, came a poor third or fourth in importance. Some Uighurs may have got a look in too later. Nuclear fusion one day may be the alternative energy source to save the planet. Uighurs, according to some, are the subject of possible genocide, certainly brainwashing, slavery and sterilisation.
A KICKED CAT STARS FOR THE ENTIRE WEEK
A continuous news theme for the whole week was Kurt Zouma, a West Ham and France international footballer, kicking his cat. Published on social media as a video, this was a shocking act of animal cruelty. In terms of global news however, does it not need to be kept in perspective. Maybe the story merited a few paragraphs for one day in the mainstream press. But no, it continued for days. It is not as if Kurt Zouma is a public celebrity in the Djokovic mould and even his antics have over dominated news time. Sponsors of the player and of West Ham withdrew in horror. He was fined £250,000 by his club. There were clarion calls for him to be suspended, presumably only from playing football. Indeed, Keir Starmer demanded Kurt Zouma be dropped. A quite balanced view was expressed by West Ham manager, David Moyes, reported to ask the amateur judges and juries to stop, and leave punishment to the criminal authorities if they pursue the matter, noting the massive fine already borne by the player, and his remorse for his actions. There was even a suggestion that maybe he could one day be forgiven, rather than forever damned. Could it be that any of his critics have ever demonstrated cruelty to perhaps another human being, let alone a cat? While the possible war in the Ukraine got more coverage than the kicked cat that week, possibly the Afghan crisis did not.
Does not a more balanced perspective need to be applied by the editors of the news in the UK throughout mainstream media in how they assess the importance of events and the amount of airtime or column inches to be given to them? Similarly, a greater sense of balance, perspective and gravitas perhaps needs to be demonstrated by the presenters of news in the UK. So often they apply the same level of seriousness to kick the cat or scurrilous photo stories, as they do to an impending war or a humanitarian disaster. Should not the UK mainstream media up its game and treat the public with more respect?
