A
problematic as people in influential positions are • Why does the media use negative language
F
increasingly concerned with public opinion. to describe people with disabilities and ethnic
T
Yasmin also argued that, “there have to be minorities? E
stories which are going to upset, and sometimes
R
Journalists all too often forget that the
upset people quite rightly – [journalism] is not
N
people reading the papers are real people. Bob
simply PR”. When there are criticisms to be
O
Satchwell noted that journalists have a great deal
made within communities of asylum seekers, or
to learn: “they are not the disabled, the blind or
O
black, Asian or Muslim people, by covering them
whatever – humanise them”.
N
you get accused of only going with negative
The best way to tackle this problem is to keep
stories, however, “you can’t just have good news
P
pointing it out when the media use negative
L
for any group or any constituency”.
language – as Roy Greenslade argued, “it’s the
E
Kevin Maguire warned that we should not
only way we’ll move forward and do it less
N
generalise too broadly about ‘the media’. He
often, and then not at all.” Clare Short agreed,
A
identified the Mail, Express, Sun, and Telegraph
suggesting that in the current “era of crude
R
as being against the Human Rights Act, and
Y
rudeness” people use certain language without
the Guardian, Independent, Mirror, Financial
realising the bias it contains. However, it is vital
Times as being in favour of it, along with most
to challenge them because it does make people
senior figures in broadcasting. This last point
change the words they use.
was disputed by Yasmin, who cited the Today
programme as an example. Roy Greenslade
• The representation of asylum seekers in the
also expressed scepticism, noting that if you
media
aggregate the circulations of the papers that
The panellists cautioned against blaming the
are against the Human Rights Act, there are
media for prejudice against asylum seekers.
probably far more papers produced that are
For one thing, as Kevin Maguire pointed out,
against the Act than for it.
only some sections of the media demonise this
Clare Short noted that it is precisely when
vulnerable group.
unpopular groups or individuals successfully
Roy Greenslade and Clare Short agreed that
claim their rights that the Human Rights Act
whilst papers such as the Daily Mail can lead
“gets bashed”, which is what makes these rights
opinion, they also reflect opinion, reflecting back
so important.
to their readers the prejudices that already
Bob Satchwell argued that it is “not so much
exist in society. Kevin said, “the fear of outsiders,
the Act itself or the ideal of human rights that
foreigners, people you don’t know, racism, has
is the problem, but the way that sometimes the
been around since before Caxton came up with
Act is interpreted or misused by jobsworths,
the printing press.”
or people using it as an excuse for not doing
something which they perhaps should do”.
Clare Short MP
If media outlets express outrage over perceived
misuse of the Human Rights Act, they are also
guilty of purposefully ignoring cases where it is
used in a positive way. Kevin Maguire gave the
example of two innocent people who used the
Human Rights Act to compel police to erase their
DNA records – as a result the law was changed.
The papers in favour of this decision failed to
report on the centrality of the Human Rights Act
to this successful outcome.
Kevin also observed that the UK government
doesn’t seem prepared to defend the Act.
“It is precisely when unpopular groups or individuals
successfully claim their rights that the Human
Rights Act ‘gets bashed’ – which is what makes
21
these rights so important.”
Clare Short MP
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32