Bridgend coverage criticised by police

The press is in serious ethical trouble for its coverage of the growing number of suicides that have been recorded in the medium-sized town of Bridgend in South Wales, yesterday coming under especially harsh criticism from the police.

A quick summary of what the press has been accused of by various sources, before I begin the story proper:

• representing suicide as a way of achieving recognition and fitting into part of a trend
• troubling the families of those involved in a cavalier manner
• misreading a series of tragic but not unusual events as a ‘story’
• dramatizing events, misusing their emotional content
• emphasizing regional stereotypes

The question that all the recent coverage has been implying is ‘Can you cover a terrible subject without at some level promoting it?’ It's an old problem, raised most often today by various forms of terrorist activities, for which I certainly don't have an answer, and as far as I can tell from reading the papers, neither does anyone really.

At today's press conference, an excerpt from which was broadcast on Channel 4, Asst Chief Constable Dave Morris (above right) calmly explained that no evidence had been found suggesting that an external force had encouraged these young people to take their lives.

He held up the front page from the South Wales Echo which bore the headline ‘REWARD OFFERED FOR SUICIDE LINK PROOF’, and then picked up a cutting from the Sunday express and commented on the layout, which emphasised the number of deaths by showing the faces of the dead around the edge of the page, and read from the intro which claimed ‘The suicide town of Bridgend is hiding a grim secret.’ He said bitterly:

‘What secret is that? I don't know. Maybe the press can tell me.’

Aside from the characterisation of Bridgend as the ‘suicide town,’ ACC Morris didn't remark on the embarassing use of the word 'Bid' in the headline on that page from the Express: ‘8 more suicide bids.’ That quirky example of journalese has a real ability to trivialize anything it's applied to.

As I've already said, I don't claim to have any answers, so let's look back at some of the coverage of these events.

Yesterday's Independent used the words of the mother of Nathaniel Pritchard, a boy who died last week. She was speaking at today's press conference. Before referring to the press's role in shaping events, the article noted she had a more basic criticism:

Nathaniel Pritchard's mother described media coverage both before and after her son's death as ‘extremely intrusive.’

She said: ‘We did not wish to speak to the media about our son's death but feel that we have to, not just for our family but other families in the Bridgend area who have lost loved ones suddenly.’

Moving on, she then blamed the press for actually glamorising the deaths:

‘We feel (the) media's coverage could trigger other young people, who are already vulnerable and feeling low, into attempting to take their own lives.

‘Media coverage put the idea in Nathaniel's head. We feel he was influenced by media coverage.

‘We feel it has glamorised ways of taking your life as a way of getting attention without fully realising the tragic consequences.’

One way of judging whether a sequence of events is in the public interest and therefore newsworthy is to see whether once identified it is at odds with the norms of the area. ‘Norm’ is a cold word to use, but perhaps the simplest.

BBC News had this to say on recent figures for deaths of young people in the area:

‘Latest statistics available from the Office for National Statistics show that there were three suicides in 2004-2005 in the Bridgend area for those aged between 15 and 30, and three in 2006.’

So according to that, the 17 deaths of young people in a year would be several times the rate seen in recent years and therefore of interest. The difficulty in making such judgments is highlighted by the words of a local journalist from Bridgend writing in yesterday's Guardian, who had quite a different set of figures:

‘The sad fact is that 16 suicides among young people in Bridgend in 12 months is no worse than usual. There were 13 suicides by young people in 2007, and 21 in total. In 2006 the total was 28 [...] One suicide a month in a good year; one every three weeks in a poor one. Men aged 16-35 are most at risk. The profile has been the same for years.’

However, having noted that the figures didn't add up to a story, he also found the press' desire to make a story disturbing, citing a different reason for his feelings - explaining that the press were exploiting these people's lives as emotional capital:

‘The profile has been the same for years - young men from poor areas, often with dismal prospects. That might be the reality, but speculation is more exciting. Had he just been dumped? Was he worried about exams? Was he being bullied?

‘It is telling that Bridgend hit the headlines only when the 13th victim, Natasha Randall, was linked to one of the boys by a photograph. She was pretty girl who, as every report said, had her “whole life ahead of her.” Until then, it wasn't much of a story.’

Many of the problems highlighted in relation to this coverage show how narrow the division between telling a story and interpreting one. Journalism is still a minefield after all these years.

Big Brother turns silent

Where crowds have normally stood baying for blood outside the Big Brother house in London every Friday night, as the contestants wait for a decision on tonight's ‘eviction night’ programme, an eerie silence is the only accompaniment to Mrs McCall's unusually toned-down stand up.

In response to the alleged racist comments made on Celebrity Big Brother and targeted towards contestant Shilpa Shetty, watching the show has actually become more interesting tonight, as the show has a quiet and even tense atmosphere. The process of sorting out of the comments made by Jade Goody, which some have deemed racist, has given the programme a structure and direction it usually lacked.

Although they must now be aware of the issues after Big Brother's pointed questions, (What did you mean when you referred to Shilpa using the term ‘Shilpa Poppadom’?) the housemates are still likely to be surprised by the remarkable coverage the show has received across all media, and from low and high-brow news sources alike; and even around the world. Not to mention the direct pressure the Television Network Channel 4 has felt from the record 30,000 complainants who have taken issue with events on this month's series.

The show is not only going out today without its usual live audience, but as of yesterday, has been stripped of its Carphone Warehouse advertising deal. The mobile phone company's slightly twee adverts formerly wrapped each segment of the programme, and their and muscial stings were part of the big brother package, like the Oakenfold theme tune. It will be interesting to see how much Russell Brand's loudmouthed daily Big Brother review programme has also changed when it airs later this evening.

The web concensus: looking around on web pages and blogs, the verdict generally seems to be that the comments made by Jade were not in fact racist, but that she and her friends were engaging in bullying, and the comments may be excused by her lack of the intelligence needed to realise how hurtful her remarks may have been. The anti-bullying charity with whom Jade was working has taken steps to disassociate itself from her.

Whatever the public as a whole feels, it seems to be the case that no one in their right mind is failing to watch Big Brother, even if they can't stand the reality genre. When David Cameron asked the public to use their ‘off buttons’ to complain about the programme, even Tony Blair had to voice his disapproval in the Commons.

It will be interesting to see how the UK reality genre responds to this challenge: although one must assume that the programme's already elevated ratings must be surging up and up, will ratings start to become secondary to the (very necessary) editorialising that has been going on in recent days?

Burma's Secret War

Evan Williams’ ‘Burma's Secret War’, just aired a few minutes ago as one of Channel 4's Dispatches programmes, is the most daring and revealing documentary on the politics of a non-democratic state that I've ever seen. I have seen journalists cross borders momentarily or pop in and out of state-controlled regions of land before in other programmes, but the sustained disregard Williams and his interview subjects show for the burmese junta's climate of secrecy is astonishing, and very moving to behold.

Williams joins people affected by the regime's cruelty and faces some of their ordeals by travelling with them to villages already being descended upon by the military. He leaves for the city before trouble arrives, only to immediately begin contacting revolutionaries and the families of victims of the clampdown on political prisoners, passing on his way the dilapidated fortress that is the location of captive former president Aung San Suu Kyi. One such man, clearly already ill, eagerly submits to interview without disguise and when asked about the danger of arrest he faces replies with a smile that "the next time they pick me up... I won't be coming back."

This is a fascinating insight into the state of affairs in the country, and in media terms, as television it allows us to see how, in a state that employs censorship and violence with impunity, the spirit of revolution is kindled against all the odds.