Posts tagged Daily Mail

Let’s hear it for the Daily Mail?

November 18, 2011 · Filed under Uncategorized · Tagged , , , , ,

I shall get in trouble for this, I know. But hey! One can’t be Little Miss Popular ALL the time.. . espesh not when you reckon that the general view on a subject is ever so slightly mis-guided.

And why we shouldn’t be surprised by how “reasonable” some papers formerly regarded as transphobic are becoming.

So. Whisper it low, but: I don’t regard the Daily Mail as some calculatedly reactionary anti-tranny rag. There: i’ve said it.

Does that mean the girl is now officially a cheerleader for the folks down at Northcliffe House? Er, no. And before there is much rejoicing and a breaking out of newsdesk bubbly, i’d better explain that in some ways, i think they – and pretty much all newspapers – are much, much worse than that.

News reality

The reality is: most journalists – myself included – are little more than tarts. We’ll screw most subjects for the right fee, the only distinguishing feature being where we draw the line (“sorry sir: you can come in now… but the goat will have to wait outside”).

The mistake starts with the idea that newspapers are anything much to do with “news”…or even “accuracy”. Of course they aren’t.

They are simply offline forums: places where people who share a particular world view gather for mutual re-inforcement. Symbiosis.

It would be nice to think that the aim is a balanced reporting of “facts”…but given the times i’ve been told off for worrying about such trivia (often by highly respected editors), the lesson – the reality – is that the gold standard is not some abstract “truth”..but the ability to “stand up” a story. By which is meant: find someone not visibly demented and prepared to give credence to a fact, opinion or interpretation.

The Mail IS its readers: a particular small-c conservative slice of middle england. It is anti-Europe, anti-scrounger, anti-political correctness and in favour of “British values”, whatever those are.

Is this some quixotic stand they take in defiance of their left-leaning crypto-commie readers? Or – and we know this in our hearts – are those not precisely the views of the vast majority of their audience?

Trans trouble

Against that, the trouble, i’d suggest, with their reporting of trans issues has been twofold. Along with most of Fleet St, the single most common story until recently has been “Unlikely stereotype male changes sex”.

Whoooeee! Those are freakshow stories, driven by a lack of consideration and respect. Who cared – until Trans Media Watch told them – that they might be mis-gendering, humiliating or exposing the subject of the story to future violence? The press reports and moves on, wholly unconcerned with the chaos it leaves behind.

However, as trans becomes more commonplace, the range of stories expands. Which is why the surprising – to some activists – empathy occasionally shown. Mostly, increasingly, the press (including the Mail) are all ooo! and ah! and cutesy about stories of trans children.

Why wouldn’t they be? The subjects DON’T look like truckers…are obviously happy…and the narrative usually includes reference to bullying, which pulls readers toward the trans side of things.

Too, a lot of these stories get covered by the women’s pages, pretty much guaranteeing a more sympathetic angle to any child-centred story.

Then there’s stories like that last week…some awful murdering psycho, now residing for the foreseeable future “at Her Majesty’s Pleasure” has the effrontery to demand the right to transition.

This presses two hot buttons for the readers. Its “political correctness gone mad”, innit? And its some undeserving scrounger getting taxpayer money, whilst deserving pensioners freeze.

Don’t get mad – get clever

What’s the point? Simply this: the press have never been our enemies. No. Far worse: they don’t really care.

As the trans narrrative becomes more widely exposed, they will take on board a range of different stock stories… will develop new clichés for dealing with them.

We, in turn, need to be cleverer than just having a pop at any tabloid that sticks its head over the horizon. Let’s welcome the positive: and understand that there are stories about our community that are all-too-easily spun negative…and start looking for the ammunition to defuse those.

jane
xx

Comments (3) »

Spun!

September 20, 2011 · Filed under Uncategorized · Tagged , , , , , ,

It is disconcerting, not to mention slightly irritating, to find that a story you have discovered, developed and broken has subsequently been bowdlerised, mostly in order to score a single party political point, by various of the national press. Predictable, though: and maybe a lesson for me in future on the copper-bottoming of stories to prevent this sort of thing happening.

The UK.GOV story

As mentioned in my previous post, i was amazed, surprised and generally gob-smacked to receive a direct answer from UK.GOV. Yes: the Passport Service “are considering the gender options” for the UK passport.

Did that include intersex issues? Could do. Because, as their spokesman later put back to me, the statement is pretty wide ranging. And literal. They are looking at ALL gender options.

The newspaper story

So how did the Daily Mail (and others) turn this? Why, tis a proposal to end a centuries old British tradition (it is not: the passport in its current form is little more than a century old) as a sop to the sensitivities of trans and intersex individuals.

How shocking, the great British dog being wagged by such a small and outlandish minority tail.!

Was this them having a go at us “freaks and weirdos”. Actually, i don’t think so. Or at least not directly. The main target of their piece was the Lib Dems, who now rank as DM hate objects far above most sexual minorities. No. This was a chance to take a swipe at the Lib Dems on the grounds of “political correctness gone mad”, for being out of touch, and for coming up with ludicrous ideas.

The grassroots view

Funny, that.

A straw poll amongst a bunch of feminist academics on Monday produced the result that most would quite happily opt for a gender-free passport. Many women, with whom i have discussed this would equally go for the non-gendered option.

Not all intersex folk would: because they prefer to identify as a particular gender. My own guess (without research) is that the majority of trans men and women would much prefer to opt for a specific gender, unless half way through transition and in need of a non-gendered passport for other reasons.

In other words: this is not a clear cut “let’s appease the minorities” move. Rather, its something that affects different people in different minorities differently (and in the case of intersex folk, that minority covers potentially up to 4% of the population!). Its worth a debate.

But still, mea culpa: i should have been that much more careful with this story. How? I think by getting my retaliation in first: making sure that quotes obtained from people such as Julian Huppert MP covered off the above.

Which still would not have prevented distortion, but would have made it that much more difficult.

Controlling stories…

Should i have sat on this story? Probably not.

Two reasons. First, despite my initial concern that adverse publicity could have led the Home Office to go back in its shell, this issue is now out in the public arena (at last count, as far as the Times of India!). Initial reaction, from all the usual suspects, has not been good.

But that’s initial reaction, and the considered stuff is yet to come. There will be some far more insightful pieces on this later, picking up on the issues i cover above – and public debate should help dissipate many of the presumed negatives.

Second, i suspect i do myself no good, at times, by dithering between my role as writer and activist/commentator. I won’t trade sensationalist stories – especially not where my information has been gained as a result of providing help and support to a vulnerable individual.

That’s a bit of a downer, bank balance wise, because my involvement with a range of sexual minorities means i get to hear of a lot of stuff that the red tops would love. So be it, though. Its about trust – and if i were selling out every last victim simply in order to raise cash i’d not be happy in myself.

At the same time, i suspect i sit on stories like this one a tad too long. If its general news and out in the local press, or something that government is up to, then it cannot, will not remain unreported. No matter how hard i try not to report on something, someone else almost always does…which leaves me kicking myself at the wasted opportunity, in two senses.

First, that i failed to get the story – and second, that very often, because i am a serious nit-picking detail girl, i could have reported it better/more accurately.

So, on the whole, i am not unhappy that the passport story is out there: but i shall certainly do all i can to fireproof such stories in future.

jane
xx

ETA: for the avoidance of doubt (since i have been asked about this)…I DO deal commercially with the Daily Mail, and did do so in this instance.

Comments (4) »

Fall-out: friendly fire

March 5, 2010 · Filed under Uncategorized · Tagged , ,

There have been two reasons for not being here quite as much as previously. One is about things happening in everyday life.

The other is that whilst we ended up reasonably happy with the Daily Mail piece, we were a tad shocked at the reaction from some people within the trans world. Perhaps we should have expected it.

After all, wherever two or more people get together in an effort to be political, factionalism starts. Thankfully, it was far from all, with quite a few very active members of same sending congrats and what felt like genuine appreciation of what was done.

Bottom line? The criticism comes in two parts: first that there is some shopping list of things that should be said and ways that communication ought to be carried on, failing which we are at best dupes, at worst selling out. Second, because i am now identifiable as trans, if anything goes wrong in future, we contributed to it. “The blood of the innocent is now – potentially – on our hands”.

The overkill would be funny were it not so serious. And of course, it works both ways. Perhaps in future i should respond to any criticism that i disagree with by accusing the author of same of having blood on their hands? Nah. That would be just a bit ott. But that has a lot to do with why this blog got interrupted: taking time out to calm down.

So what do i think of much of the criticism? Hmmm. It comes from a theory of communication and politics that i have little time for. i spent twenty plus years in media and communications analysing real data about how communications work.

I have also read some of the bizarre polemics put out by activists in general about how “its the detail, stupid”. Its not, you know.

You need to understand your audience: the effect you want to engender in that audience; and if you’re lucky, you might achieve one or two minor things with every major communication.

andrea and i set out to talk to people who weren’t activists: to get across a couple of very minor bits of emotional shading. every piece of feedback from the target audience seems to suggest we succeeded. But we didn’t tick the box labelled political correctitude.

Oh dear. That, of course, is issue number two. I have spent the best part of thrity years campaigning against a narrow, censorial attitude towards speech that links words and effect in some sort of rigid deterministic way. The evidence for it isn’t there: the dangers of buying in to such a view are very real.

Hey ho… i’ve spent a lifetime conforming to a conformity that hasn’t worked for me. i’ve come out. i’m not conforming any more.

Quelle surprise, therefore, to find that the people most anxious to impose a new conformity are those whose community i now find myself a member of. i feel myself coming over all anti-social.

Leave a comment »

Fall-out: the nutters

February 28, 2010 · Filed under Uncategorized · Tagged , ,

I really shouldn’t get out of practice on this blog. So apologies to anyone interested in reading it for the temporary lull – occasioned both by my recent foray into confessional journalism, and the fall-out that followed.

On the whole, we were pretty pleased with what the Daily Mail published. We had some control over how we were quoted – and felt that the journalist doing the interview was both well-intentioned and courteous throughout.

OK. Maybe a slight case of journalism eating itself: but we set out to get a positive story into the press about a couple staying together after one half turns trans – and as far as middle-brow england is concerned, that is what we achieved.

Of course it evoked criticism from many who dislike trans in one form or another. Everything has been thrown our way, in comments on the Mail and elsewhere, that might be presumed to be hurtful.

i look “unconvincing” (a little like a trucker, as one individual politely commented, thereby presuming that truckers must by definition be ugly. Or maybe they meant “truck”…but had a little local difficulty with their spelling).

Poor andrea was a widespread reaction, and not wholly unfair. After all, this is a major life-changing event that she didn’t sign up for when we met. She is still working her way through how it makes her feel.

By contrast, how selfish i must be, to inflict this on partner, children, family, etc., etc. Oddly, i agree with that analysis. It was a major obstacle to my finally coming out: the thought of what this would do to those who know me. In the end, the counter-thought was what this would do to me if i DIDN’T.

Most of my life has been spent supporting others. This is a big, essential, selfish act – and also a very necessary one.

Too, there was loads of stuff to which i will return about the fact i can never be a “real” woman. Hmmm. I’d buy that – though the thought is far more complicated than what most of them have posted.

In the end, though, i have few complaints, and the nastiness has done little to prick me. i always knew it was there. this changes little and, thankfully, places it in the context of many many times more people being supportive.

Thanks for all the kind words…but on the whole, the nay-sayers have done little to hurt.

jane

Comments (3) »

In the Lion’s Mouth (I)

February 18, 2010 · Filed under Uncategorized · Tagged , ,

The good thing about being a writer is that it comes with privilege attached. Not that I have yet – thank God! – descended to a pathetic Winneresque bellow of “do you know who I am?”, followed by some diatribe in whatever tame magazine I can command.

Although I did once do a piece on banking security that was at least partly inspired by some pretty poor experiences with Lloyds bank. But I didn’t name names. At least not until this blog.

Still, though, being a writer means i get to meet and talk to some very interesting people: last year’s candidate for the most interesting title was probably Film Director John Waters. It also means i have access.

Want to write about coming out? Yep: i’d guess almost everyone who ever has transitioned has a story to tell – many far more interesting than my own.

But i know editors and, at last count, i had four offers to “reveal all”. Hmmm. Where to start?

In the end, we – andrea and i – did either the stupidest or possibly most useful thing we could. We went and talked to the Mail. They are writing a feature about transgender, starring the two of us.

Presumptuous on our part? Probably. But the feeling, at the end of the interview, is that we aren’t going to get torn to bits and, if we’re not, that’s going to be a real positive: a major piece in a major newspaper about trans that ISN’T focussed on regrets or speculation about some celebrity having gender wobbles.

Lady Gaga, anyone?

Both interview and interviewer were lovely. Not that that tells much: as i was answering questions yesterday, a part of me was admiring the real skill that Helen Weathers, the Mail journalist doing the piece, brought to her work.

She re-assured. She was knowledgeable. She asked insightful questions. I was seriously impressed – and not a little envious. Strange how the grass is always greener as, in between the questions, she expressed her own wistfulness at not being directed towards the heavier issues sometimes. Whilst i would love to shift my own work back towards the insightful interpersonal stuff she does.

Anyway, the die is cast. Interview done. We have quote approval – which basically means we won’t be misquoted. It doesn’t prevent a total stitch-up – though maybe it helps avoid a bloodbath.

We will be seeing advance copy soon. Fingers very much crossed.

Comments (3) »

« Previous Page
Next entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 101 other followers