AVP and the Mirror Newspaper

Following my last post, of which (surprise surprise) I have had zilch response, I now give you one of the UK's newspapers which continues to use both misleading, inaccurate and offensive headlines.

The Daily Mirror

 

 

 

Two of the latest headlines are below, both are from the last couple of days, so it makes you wonder whether anyone actually reads and e-mails or tweets sent to the Mirror.

 

Paedophile who used Skype to share vile images of child porn jailed

 

Paedophile pensioner caught with huge stash of child porn spared jail

 

 

A message for the Daily Mirror - Please don't call this crime "Child Porn" or "Child Pornography". These images are of children being either sexually exploited, raped, or sexually abused for the gratification of paedophiles. Children cannot consent, they cannot do "porn", and the only people who would refer to them as "porn" are the paedophiles themselves. Would a victim of this crime describe themselves as taking part in a porn shoot - would they describe themselves as a "child porn star"? Nope. If you were to view such images, would you automatically think "porn"? Nope. Would you deliberately use paedo terms in your newspaper? Hopefully not. So why do you continue to use this offensive and trivialising term? Please don't call it this, the correct legal term is "indecent images of children" (IIOC), although Child Abuse Images is just as good.

 

Of course, although this is the more common headline used in not only the Mirror, but far too many newspapers, it isn't the only misleading and offensive term that has been seen in the Mirror recently. Here are a few more:

 

Ex Tory Cabinet minister 'caught on camera at child sex party'

 

 

Note to Mirror - What exactly is "Child Sex"? What exactly is an "underage sex party"? As with "child porn", children cannot and do not consent to being raped and abused by adults. Why not call this by the more accurate term, namely "RAPE". Which according to Wiki is "a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent". Rape rape rape.....it really is quite easy to remember.

 

Two Coronation Street stars investigated over 'four-in-a-bed romp with two underage girls'

 

 

The two girls in question being 10 and 12. A completely inaccurate and trivialising headline that would not look out of place in some sleazy magazine. Note to Mirror - A four in a bed romp? Underage girls? What utter nonsense. What does the word "romp" imply to you? To me, the words imply a mutually consenting, although illicit, steamy sex session between more than 2 people. Not two adults being caught in a bed with two children. Yes, children, not "underage girls" (technically correct, but the words underage girls indicate a year or two under the age of consent, not children).

 

 Child sex shame of Brazil: Prostitute aged 14 used by workers at England World Cup venue

 

 

There's that "child sex" again. Also, describing a child who has been prostituted out as a "Child Prostitute". Note to Mirror - Calling someone a "prostitute" implies a willingness and consent by the individual. The correct term, and the one that describes this crime properly is a "Prostituted child", which takes away the implied consent and focus's the actions to the adults procuring these children (instead of "prostituting", being "prostituted out").

 

 

 

Teacher jailed for four-year lesbian fling

 

 

A "Fling"? As in a "Casual sexual relationship"? Relationship as in "mutually consenting"? Really? a 14 year old? Note to Mirror - A fourteen year old cannot consent to any sort of sexual activity, there is no "relationship", just a one-sided abuse of trust and sexual abuse, pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less. For two abults, yes, a "fling", for an adult and a child, no.

 

 

Google the daily Mirror, and you see "Mirror Online: The Intelligent Tabloid"

 

 

If you have not read the e-mail I sent to you a few days ago regarding language in the media, please take note of the points raised above. Prove that you are really "The Intelligent Tabloid", and start taking care in your headlines and reporting. There are more important things than trying to sell papers using sleazy inaccurate headlines and styles of reporting - not offending people and trivialising serious crimes should take a higher precedent than this.

 

Do the right thing - amend your style guide that you use to encompass the above.

 

 

“Language is very powerful. Language does not just describe reality. Language creates the reality it describes.”  - Desmond Tutu.

AVP, PCC and the usual Waste of Time.

AVP and the Sunday Mirror

 

 

 

Readers may remember the above post, regarding the Sunday Mirror headline from September "Two Coronation Street Stars investigated over 'four in a bed romp"

 

Not the sort of story you envisage from this headline, when you consider that this is concerning two girls aged between ten and twelve. How the hell this can a paper justify describing girls of this age "romping" with adults?

 

Unfortunately it will come as no surprise really, that my complaints went nowhere. Rather than state the bleeding obvious as to why this AVP headline is completely inappropriate, I thought I would share the reasons that the PCC have arrived at as to why no editorial code has been breeched.

 

"The complainant considered that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The newspaper had reported that two actors had been accused of engaging in sexual activity with two underage girls. The complainant was concerned that the use of the term “four-in-a-bed romp” in the headline gave the misleading impression that there had been mutual consent between all individuals allegedly involved. "

 

With the limited reasons that one can complain to them, you have to select a clause that highlights the complaint. The PCC does not judge "personal opinions", only the actual facts of the story. Inevitably in a case like this, clause one is one that I normally use - "inaccuracy".

 

"While the Commission noted the complainant’s concern that the headline had trivialised very serious allegations, it had regard for the fact that the text of the article clearly explained the nature of the allegations. The Commission was satisfied that the headline, taken in the context of the article as a whole, had not been significantly misleading. There was no breach of the Code."

 

Well, what can you say? A bit  of a "copy & paste" job that matches many of the other complaints that I have made previously.

 

No surprise there.

 

With this type of reasoning, any paper can use any headline, no matter how offensive, trivialising and inaccurate it may be. As long as the article itself is fairly accurate and doesn't "mislead you", it doesn't matter a jot.

 

Young disabled lack the basic necessities

 

Imagine the complaints if the above actually read

 

Young Retards lack the basic necessities

Aha.

 

But wait, wait just a minute.

 

Using the reasoning of the PCC, and as long as "the headline, taken in the context of the article as a whole, is not significantly misleading, there is no breach of the Code".

 

And PCC does not take complaints based on 'personal opinions' or 'personal offense'.

 

Not much you can do.

 

Unlucky.

 

One of the reasons I don't really bother that much with PCC, Ofcom or similar, although I did hope this time, that this would have been a bit different. There is no system to make complaints like this - one just has to hope that one the media opens their eyes a bit and realises the offensive way that they can report on issues like this. I know, I know, fat chance of that - I have pages of replies from them on various things, and the majority are full of lame excuses. 

 

One day though ... one day.... until then, we keep going.

AVP and the Sunday Mirror

Two Coronation Street stars investigated over 'four-in-a-bed romp with two underage girls'

 

Rather than bore you with explaining the AVP in the above article, that the media sometimes reports like this, here is the e-mail I have sent to The Daily Mirror. I have also raised this with the press complaints commission - lets see what (if any) response I get. Knowing Ryan Parry from previous complaints, I will receive either nothing at all, or an e-mail asking me not to waste any of his time on complaints like this.

Anyway - here goes.

"Hi,
 
I have as you will have known, desisted from e-mailing you regarding your continued (but not quite so much) use of the trivialising way that you describe indecent images of children.
 
However, I must complain about the disgusting way that the above story has appeared in Sunday's Mirror.
 
2 points -
 
Firstly the way that the girls are merely described as under aged (before you point out to me, I know they are) rather than as children. Someone seeing a headline about underage girls would assume that they are within a couple of years under the age of consent - not somewhere between ten and twelve years old. These should not be described as "underage", but as children - as children are exactly what they are.
 
Secondly and more importantly, the choice of words by the Mirror "Four in a bed romp".
 
Please - even the Mirror must know that this sort of statement implies some sort of steamy orgy - a mutual sexual consent between all four parties. Reading a headline describing a four in a bed romp, should be best left to some celebrity gossip column, a "Sunday Sport" special maybe, an article in NUTS or ZOO - but never to describe 2 Corrie stars being allegedly caught sexually abusing two 10-12 year old children.
 
I would be very grateful for a reply this time - I realise the last e-mail I received from Mr Parry advised me that I was wasting too much of his precious time by e-mailing him my concerns, but child abuse is a serious issue and should never ever be trivialised and downplayed in the manner you are doing. This has to be one of the worst headlines to describe alleged child abuse I have seen in a long time.
 
Many thanks"

Not holding my breath - it's bad for my health!