Comments on: The media, and institutional racism (and sexism, classism…)

By: Aidan

Aidan — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 16:33:00 +0000

Rather infamously, the Daily Mail sent a couple of reporters up the M1 to the scene of a particularly vicious family massacre in the Midlands in the 1980s, only to abruptly call all back from en route, with the news: ‘We’ve just found out the name’s Singh…’
I think there has certainly been progress since then, and as said above, the news choices often depend on several factors such as ideal-readership resonance; unusualness for the area affected (eg. St Abigail Witchells from a small, ‘commuter-belt’ Surrey village, over the Operation Trident-delegated shootings of a few miles away in south London; the Soham girls, instead of the similar-aged but inner-city Nottingham girl also brutally murdered that same week); attractiveness but also availability of photos (eg. the young Croydon model Sally-Anne Bowman).
I think the horrific shootings of the Aston New Year’s Day victims did initially receive plenty of Press coverage, but if the reports fell away after a while, it was perhaps due more to the really-rather-baffling complexities of the court case, the defendants’ relationships and various injunctions applied to the reporting. Of course, there is a slightly protesteth-too-much about some papers’ Anthony Walker/Stephen Lawrence supporting.
Can certainly understand Ian Blair’s complaints and suggestions. Sort-of brave of him to mix it up with an already-suspicious mainstream media too. Though, sadly, it does seem a little like complaining about the weather…

By: bedblogger

bedblogger — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:07:55 +0000

A form of discrimination always avoided or ignored by press and many bloggers alike, is that of disabled people. Disabled people often receive either scorn/mistrust or pity.

We are either portrayed as totally incapable (look at that poor woman suffer with that horrifically disabled child/husband/old person) or as malingerers/fraudsters, whose lives are never as difficult or compromised as we say. The reality of our day-to-day lives with a disability isn’t often considered.

The recent BBC programme On The Fiddle, showed these polarised exemplars perfectly. The mother of severely autistic child, suffering juxtaposed with benefit fraud committed by a roofer, saying he is unable to walk or work. Such cases are thankfully exceptionally rare but impact hugely on how disabled people are perceived and treated. In reality, DWP figures put disability fraud at under 0.5%, and this figure also includes DWP incompetence and error.

From Little Britain to David Blunkett/john Hutton, the preception is that we are all swinging the lead; that the Disability Discrimination Act has made a difference to our lives (I still cannot fit my wheelchair into many high street shop changing rooms), and we exagerate our dis-abilities; that somehow we are all capable of work. This is obviously rubbish.

Maybe its time to see us as real people, who are a compromised to one degree or another, but who are in 99.999% of cases not defrauding the state?

Just thought I’d point that out

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:59:52 +0000

Heavens. I can’t spell the word “anybody”. Or finish my sentences.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:52:07 +0000

Of course, the first time Ian Blair actually apologises for something is also the first time I actually agree with him…

I think you’re absolutely right about the range of factors that lead to different levels of coverage – in which the age, class, race, and physical attractiveness of the victim are the key ones – . What strikes me most is that Blair used the phrase “institutional racism”, and used it absolutely correctly. It’s often misinterpreted to mean “everybody in this organisation is a member of the KKK”, when of course it means just the opposite. Nobody (or hardly enybody) involved in the process of news reporting does so with overt racial prejudice – they don’t sit down at their desks and think “HURRR BLACKS ARE TEH SUCK IT DOESN’T MATTER WHEN THEY DIE.”

But the reporters seek out stories that will resonate with their editors, and their editors pick out the stories that they think will resonate with their readers – and at every stage all it takes is a little laziness, or a little subconcious prejudice, or a little underestimating the scope of human empathy before you end up with the situation we have. Pretty, middle-class dead blonde girls get more front pages than ugly, working-class dead black guys. Heartstrings are tugged. And the stereotypes get reinforced even further.

The concept of “Institutional $PREJUDICE” is so useful because it refers to systems in which everybody can do their job properly, without any overt prejudice, and yet the outcome will still be biased.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:23:55 +0000

I think the media likes healthy does of symbolism in what it reports, and so anything that confirms our stereotypes gets better press. Holly and Jessica are typical Red Riding Hood figures, in red Man U shirts. Its interesting that when Jodi Jones was killed in Livingstone, the picture released to the press was about five years out of date, depicting a prepubescent primary school kid, rather than the fifteen year old goth that she actually became.