Who are they writing for?
When you see the kind of stuff that the Mail's been churning out all day about the Lib Dems you have to wonder: who are they writing all this for? Is it for their readers, or is it for themselves?
One thing I'm often told, when criticising the likes of the Mail or Express for dog-whistle racism (or out-and-out racism), is that these papers aren't dictating to their readers - they're anticipating their readers' views, and writing for their readers. In other words, they're only writing what their readers want to read. And I can see that. It could all be some elaborate construction by the newspapers: they put forward a representation of world events which anticipates the prejudices and fears of their readers and neatly tailors the storylines so they fit perfectly.
It's a way of thinking, of course, which neatly removes all traces of culpability from the hands of those putting the newspapers together. Of course we don't believe those things we say! But our readers do have those views, and who are we to tell them they're wrong? They're paying our wages after all! Why shouldn't we give them the news that they expect and like, as opposed to the news which might be a bit closer to what's going on, or a bit more complicated, but which is less comforting, or less reinforcing, to read?
But there's something unsatisfactory to me about that as a complete, or even partial, explanation. And it's particularly at times like this that I think it doesn't quite ring true. Now, no-one has done a poll of Mail readers and their voting intentions (as far as I'm aware), but if they did, there's a likelihood that - even among them, and I'm bearing in mind that most Mail readers are likely to be Tory voters - there might have been a little spurt towards the Lib Dems, in keeping with the larger (if possibly temporary) spurt towards the Lib Dems that's been seen across the country as a whole. If the Mail is writing for its readers, why isn't it reflecting that? Why is it going out of its way to challenge that?
A couple of things come to mind. The first is the idea of the Mail trying to do a Jedi mind trick: "This isn't the non-Gordon Brown option you're looking for", hoping that a slow-witted reader might just think, "oh OK" and ask them to move along. The second is the idea that maybe, really, they aren't writing for their readers at all, but chucking out their own worldview and asking - maybe more than asking, actually - that readers fall into line. There was something shrill and didactic in the tone of that editorial piece I linked to in this morning's post that reminded me of a parental figure admonishing a naughty child, or a teacher giving a ticking-off to an unruly pupil. The message was: we know what's best for you, and don't you forget it.
I wonder how readers are going to take that. Sure, the hardcore Mail demographic, the older readers, people who buy mobile phones with massive buttons and stuff like that, a lot of them are going to be getting their news from one place only, and that's their paper of choice. But what of others, younger Mail readers for example who aren't going to accept being the passive partner in the media relationship? Are they just going to say to themselves: "well hey, we must have got it wrong, and so must everyone else, because the Mail here are attacking Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems with such a ferocity that there must be something in it"? Or will they start wondering if something's up? I wonder if this is really the kind of relationship that people have with their media in the digital age.
The election campaign brings these things into sharper focus, of course. Usually the dead-tree media likes to point you in the direction it would like you to go, and then leaves it up to you. But there's something distinctly unsubtle about the way in which people like the Sun and Mail have been going about their business during this election campaign - something as ham-fisted and clunky as the 'Nick Clegg isn't properly British by blood' article which I wrote about the other day, for example, really smacks of being a tremendously blunt instrument, for a newspaper whose messages are very often, whatever we might think of them, written between the lines.
I don't know if it's desperation, or anger, or whatever it is. It's hilarious to see the Mail accusing the BBC of a 'risible lack of objectivity' at the same time as attempting a pretty clumsy hatchet job on Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems, but it's pretty saddening too. Of course, there is every chance that Clegg's popularity will come down from its current zenith, with a well-placed attack here, a fumbling performance on TV there, a bit of the stardust wearing off, or whatever, and then you could say that they're writing for their readers after all, they just happen to be one step ahead of the bell curve. You could even say that the attacks here will be part of the reason that might see that popularity start to wane, due to the real influence of the dead-tree press. You could, but that's to suppose that all those things happen, to give credit where it isn't due, to imagine that the influence of these publications is strong, and not getting weaker all the time. Which isn't to say that there isn't every possibility that the Conservative Party could be returned with a healthy majority, because there is; it's just that if that does happen, it won't be, I think, because a bunch of newspapers came out fighting for them.
This may well all end up being irrelevant, or forgotten, but it's interesting to watch. The Mail comes across not as a strong player in this, but simply desperate. The level and intensity of attacks, the lack of subtlety in the stuff about Nick Clegg's background, the relentlessness of it all, and above all the way in which readers are treated with contempt, told they're wrong, told they should fall into line and do what they're told; it all seems a bit like a boxer who is fading but trying to get one last haymaker in. Maybe they will. But even if they do, I can't help thinking that this will be one of the last elections at which the dead-tree press has much influence at all. People can see the candidates for themselves on TV now, and download their manifestos at home. Who needs the middleman to tell them what to think? Who needs them at all?
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Workbrain
- So Solid Wiki fun
- Quentin Letts killed by a woodchipper
- I just sent Robin round
- Kim Jong Ill
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Maeva on Tarts and hookers
- Merrick on Workbrain
- Maxine on Workbrain
- Sirenofbrixton on Workbrain
- Katie on Workbrain
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.
April 21st, 2010 - 21:04
The Telegraph attacked Clegg because he comes from a rich background and went to an expensive school. I mean, that’s incredible.
Basically, they’re rattled. Particularly The Sun which, unlike the Mail, prides itself on always backing the winner. They’re about to have their assertion that the papers decide elections comprehensively demolished. And they don’t like it one bit.
April 21st, 2010 - 21:18
I was just thinking how the media is sounding increasingly desperate and incredulous that people aren’t accepting their spoon-fed instructions anymore, and thinking “I hope Anton picks up on this soon because he’ll write this up better than I will”. Good work :p
It makes me increasingly excited for the NEXT election (and the one after that, and after that…) when more young people who – I hope – will maintain their cynicism and insistence of rejecting the mainstream media narrative(s) that are so often forced on us. This is probably just my idealism talking, but I hope that all this social media and sharing of opinion is actually having a positive effect.
Hurrah for everything!
April 21st, 2010 - 21:26
Furthermore… I nipped over to the Telegraph just now to find today’s debate topic:
“How can we encourage children to think for themselves?” alongside yet another anti-Clegg article. Hijimilarious.
http://debate2010.telegraph.co.uk/debate?debate=a07A00000021cOfIAI
April 22nd, 2010 - 06:10
There’s more of it today, including a laughable piece about how Clegg has been trained by a spin doctor to ‘speak to the public as to a ten-year-old’…
The lead story is about an ‘astonishing attack’ by Clegg on ‘our national pride’. Sadly, a lot of the comments are regurgitating material from the not-really-British story from the other day. His kids are called Miguel and stuff, how could you expect him not to hate Britain?
April 22nd, 2010 - 06:44
I accidentally caught some of Nick Clegg on Radio 4 yesterday and one of the callers rang up about “being dragged into Europe” and then got onto immigration and his views were just as you might expect from someone that read the telegraph/mail/express. Likewise my parents, who I’m sad to say read the telegraph and the mail, and despite living in somewhere were you could count on your fingers the number of immigrants there have been in the last 10 years, believe that “europe” is wreaking our lives and immigrants are taking over the country.
If you say something often enough it becomes true.
Still I hope you are right about a younger generation seeing it differently (although I find it hard to imagine younger people reading the mail)
April 22nd, 2010 - 08:24
“If you say something often enough it becomes true.”
Definitely agree there. Becomes most obvious with the whole myth of Political Correctness. The way I see it, “Political Correctness” has never actually truly existed, and the term has only existed to help push a myth of white victimhood.
April 22nd, 2010 - 08:08
Let us hope that at least some of the readership see this hatchet job for what it truely is and are so insensed that they vote for the LibDems in retaliation. As for ” call me Dave” I agree with my wife, if he’s elected he’ll unzip his forehead and show us The Slitheen within.
April 22nd, 2010 - 08:11
I think it comes down to basic tribalism. The newspapers fall into the adversarial mindset in just the same way that our ridiculous “democratic” system has always operated. Consequently they pick a side and construct their stories and arguments to support that whilst taking great relish to attack the opposition with whatever muck they can rake up no matter how unsubstantiated.
One thing that has been really interesting this week is just how inconsequential the tabloids seem to be in forming opinion compared with national TV coverage. And as you point out, the advent of social networking seems set to further erode the paper press’s influence. It does seem to me that their response to this growing impotence is to make ever more outrageous and sensationalised stories. (e.g. Cristina Odone’s disgraceful ad hominem attack on Dr. Evan Harris).
This election is very difficult to call, but one thing that seems certain to result will be a welcome change of electoral system to one that better represents the voting public (some form of PR). With such a system in place, our representatives will need to find a better way of working together – co-operation rather than tribalism – and with modern information technology, will have to do so under the scrutiny of the electorate. They will need to be reasonable and rational rather than stubborn and argumentative to earn the respect and support of we observers.
In such circumstances, I think the press themselves will have to change their tack. They have the opportunity to provide readers with quality political insights into this new political era and hope they will seize that chance. I think (and hope) that those who continue with blinkered, entrenched views will find themselves out-dated, irrelevant and ultimately extinct…
All in my very humble and idealistic opinion, of course…
April 22nd, 2010 - 08:51
@Luton Diesel – Funnily enough, whenever I hear Cameron I always feel as though he thinks the average voter is a moderately intelligent 10-year-old:
“Let’s get off this road to ruin and get on the path to prosperity!”
“So what does it really take to change a country?”
“I’m really excited about this election!”
etc…
Count me as another who hopes this election coverage is revealing the naked agendas of certain newspapers for all to see. It’ll be interesting to see the debate tonight, and the reaction to it (sorry, Anton) because I want to know how the Lib Dems will handle this charge that they’re far too pro-European, and whether Clegg will tackle some of the comments about his family and background being suspiciously ‘foreign’.
His performance last time, and popular reaction to it, forced the press to change their usual tune. Will tonight’s debate do so again, or was that a one-time-only thing?
Interesting times
April 22nd, 2010 - 08:58
Sorry, Anton but you’re in danget od getting as prejudiced as the DM tself, but in another way, namely agism.’people who buy mobile phones with massive buttons’ indeed. As an older person, I fel taht you’re patronising me.
Who do think have kept the Lib Dems going these past few years?
Please stop assuming that everyone over the age of 30 is a senile fuddy-duddy and a DM reader.
Keep going, but cut the agism please!
John
PS. I hope you remember your posts when *you* want a big button phone!
April 22nd, 2010 - 09:37
Sorry if I annoyed you. Of course, I know well that lots of older people aren’t senile old fuddy duddies. (On the other hand, a lot of Mail readers are.)
April 22nd, 2010 - 09:25
The worry is that older voters are very important – that venerable US pollster the BBC keep interviewing claimed that in one sense the “old vote” as a whole was 4 times more important than the young vote, because there are twice as many of them and they’re twice as likely to vote. And lots of them read the Mail.
April 22nd, 2010 - 09:51
Wait, though – how old is “old”? Are there really “twice as many of them”?
I agree with the basic point though. The problem with the internet is it can sometimes create the illusion of a massive popular movement when in fact it’s just a massive movement within the population who blog and comment regularly. We might all be crowing about the death throes of the dead-tree press, but their supportive readers might just be keeping quiet in all this (as the medium kinda encourages).
The kind of discontent articulated on this blog is slowly trickling out into the mainstream, but only very slowly and faintly. There was a feeble interview on Radio 4 this morning – Sarah Montague had Steve Richards from the Independent and Trevor Kavanagh of the Sun on, trying to point to the way the Murdochs influence press coverage in this country, but the point fell totally flat. Kavanagh steamrollered the point Montague was trying to make, and she tamely let him.
April 22nd, 2010 - 09:50
Well thought out, well reasoned as ever.
The press, reactionary or otherwise, are dying. The Times and other Murdoch rags are desperate, and the decision to make the Times subscription only is another way to stop comment, since only comment by and for readers, or subscribers, with kill the press faster.
More far seeing readers will know that the election is a small thing, but we need to get the right result, because if Saint dave wins, the coming referendum (refedenda?) will not take place so the old system will be in place. Only with true reform of the electoral system will we see change, and I for one want this desperately.
Keep it up.
April 22nd, 2010 - 10:47
The attempted hatchet job is of course laughable and almost embarrassing in its’ lack of subtlety, however the Daily Mail might defend it’s positioning alongside their accusation of a ‘risible lack of objectivity’ where the BBC are concerend, by suggesting that they aren’t necessarily there to be impartial and are a commerical operation. Of course they’re biased but could they not argue that they have no obligation to be anything else and that it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t accuse a publicly-funded broadcaster of being the same?
April 22nd, 2010 - 12:10
luton diesel – ‘speak to the public as to a ten-year-old’…
it’s funny because that is what ALL media training tells you to do. write/speak as though you are talking to a 10 or 11 year old. so, no doubt, at some point these journalists have been told the same thing. that’s why the daily mail is written in those weird, overly short, staccato paragraphs that have one point per para in them. you write or talk down.