There are however other aspects to this popularisation trend which are, I believe rather more worrying.
A few weeks ago I watched a TV police programme “Inspector George Gently” set in the late 1960s. The programme was, as always, enjoyable and largely, I felt, recaptured the atmosphere of the time. However, at one point I think there was a small slip up in the production. A small child went missing and in the aftermath a collection of flowers, children’s teddies and other toys are left outside the child’s home by friends and neighbours. I may be wrong but my recollections of the times do not include this sort of public display of grief, sympathy or emotion. Even in the swinging sixties the “stiff upper lip” was still, as I remember it, the way British people at least dealt with crises, death, injury or catastrophe.
I’m not defending that position – it may be that the public outpouring of grief and mutual support is a “good thing” – but it is, I believe largely a modern trend. The ultimate “outpouring”, of course, was following the death of Princess Diana – indeed I might argue that this was the event that acted as a catalyst to something that up to that point was a relatively unknown phenomena. This popular outpouring following Diana’s death – undeniably encouraged and stoked up by the comments of the ultimate PR and band wagon man Prime Minister Tony Blair - led to the Queen being heavily criticised for appearing hard and uncaring - or "professional" one might say! As we have seen in the middle east in recent months with what has been called “the Arab Spring” it is out of such situations that great changes for good or ill might come. In the case of Diana (and I am not a monarchist – indeed few things would give me greater pleasure that to see the British monarchy and all its trappings got rid of) it is my view that the Queen was exactly right in her basic response – she should have remained aloof, dignified and calm, not subject to the baying hounds of popular culture!
Now, it seems, any unfortunate event has to be marked by a public display of emotion and support – and not only by those closest to the deceased or the family concerned. As with Diana’s death people from far and wide will show their sympathy and emotion even though they have no contact with or knowledge of that person. Facebook pages are set up and we read comments like “I will always love you and miss you” – from remote sympathisers with no other contact than the Facebook page! Maybe it does people good to show their emotions in this way. Maybe the “stiff upper lip” approach was not good psychology. Maybe it is good to let it all “hang out”. But, having said that, I also feel that it is bound up with another change in our national psyche – the increasing (it seems to me) deterioration of what I will loosely call “professionalism”.
This was all brought home to me over the weekend as I watched one of the TV reports from Machynnleth in Wales as the dreadful story of the missing little girl April Jones unfolded. During the reports of the search for April her parents asked that people should show their support by wearing pink ribbons – pink being April’s favourite colour. We were told by reporters that everywhere in the town was a sea of pink and shops were rapidly running out of pink ribbon. This was all well and good and if this tribute brought some kind of support to the distraught family and kept the profile of the case high in the public imagination then it is clearly a good thing. However, over the weekend the police called a news conference to announce that a man would be charged with April’s murder. At the news conference, the police men and women on view all wore pink ribbons – and, for me what was worse, so did the representative of the Crown Prosecution Service! This cannot be right, it would seem to me that someone in his position (and indeed the police) should not put themselves in the position of potentially “taking sides” or displaying a position that might be interpreted as anything less than totally objective – it is the principle on which our justice system operates. The gentleman concerned was clearly a Welshman – perhaps a local man – and so maybe he felt a particular affinity with this dreadful event. I am sure that his motives were well meant – but they were misguided. He explained what the accused would be charged with and ended by saying “we must, however, remember that the accused is entitled to a fair trial”. He was quite right in this but, no matter how hard I tried, the fact that he was wearing the pink ribbon – a physical manifestation of his loyalty and support for the family of the child at the potential expense of the accused - seemed to detract a little from his objectivity. It was no surprise to me that when I watched the TV footage of the crowds outside the court room having to be held back by police as they tried to get to the van carrying the accused many were wearing pink ribbons. Popularism and popular culture is fine – but it must not be allowed to cloud professional judgement or professional responsibility and compromise objectivity – when that happens we are not far from the rule of the mob and the vigilante.
And this trend of compromising objectivity has grown and developed over many years. I well remember about thirty years or so ago. One of the BBC TV newsreaders was a man named Robert Dougall. He was, I suppose, one of the senior readers and in a way “the face” of BBC News. One evening, and I remember this vividly, he reported an item of news and there was a short film clip to accompany the item. At the end of the clip, Dougall sighed and raised his eyebrows, clearly expressing his personal disapproval of the issue being reported. In the days that followed Dougall was chastised because he had, it seemed, brought his personal feelings into what should have been an objective piece of reporting. Today, that would not be an issue. The truly awful Fiona Bruce with her husky tones and “come to bed eyes” each day has a voice and expression for every type of news event she reports. In much the same way that it was claimed some years ago that Tony Blair’s government had “sexed up” the facts about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction so, too, many news readers (most notably Bruce) and channels “sex up” the news to make it more powerful, emotive or eye catching. It is the popularisation of news rather than its objective reporting. Bruce’s style is fine for her comparing of the Antiques Road Show – but not for news reporting. What Bruce (and many others today) provide is an “act” and a subjective “presentation” of the news. Subjective opinion and personal viewpoints have become hopelessly muddled and entangled with objective substance – and when that happens people are influenced for good or ill – by opinion and not by fact. It is how mobs are swayed by clever orators.
And finally, one last but different example of this popularisation. In itself of no importance whatsoever when compared with the above – but a telling and a sad indictment of the world we live in. It also highlights well the thin line between professionalism and popularisation.
Last week the England Football Manager, Roy Hodgson went to watch a high profile match at Arsenal. Hodgson is well respected, articulate and thinking man – who generally stands a little aloof from the day to day murky goings on in football. For reasons known only to himself he elected to travel to the game by underground rather than car or taxi. In itself this might be very democratic of him – to travel with the ordinary “punters” - but it brings with it some responsibilities. As England Manager he could have had reserved parking, maybe even a police escort if he really required it but no, it was by public underground he went.
As was always going to happen he was recognised by football fans on the train and in the “banter” that was always going to occur he was asked about the selection of the next England team – and in particular if the player Rio Ferdinand would be playing. For those unfamiliar with football news Ferdinand plays for Manchester United but after an illustrious England career has not played for the national side for some time – partly through injury and partly because of an ongoing dispute about racist remarks between his footballing brother Anton and the England captain John Terry. “Is Rio going to be in the squad” the travelling fans asked Hodgson. The formal announcement of the selected England team was due to be made on the following day. At this point Hodgson could have ignored the question and stuck his head in his newspaper, he could have said “No comment”, he could have said “Look lads, you know I can’t tell you that – read your papers tomorrow and you’ll find out”. That would have been the correct and professional thing to do. Any one of those answers would have solved the problem – the last one the best as the fans concerned would have understood what he was saying but at the same time he would have had made their night by talking to them – they would have all gone home and said to family and friends “Guess what, I talked to Roy Hodgson on the train tonight". It would have been a bit of reflected glory. But no, instead Hodgson said “No, Rio isn’t in the team” and then allegedly went on to say that the player’s England career was over! Unsurprisingly it was front page headlines the day after. Equally understandably Rio Ferdinand was soon expressing his frustration and anger that travellers on the London underground knew of his non-selection before he did – it became a matter of public knowledge and Hodgson was forced to apologise to the player.
Leaving aside the player’s hurt feelings (I suspect that he will soon get over it!) it seems a professionally inept thing for Hodgson to do. Hodgson is extremely well paid, holds a job which is very much in the public eye, is without any shadow of doubt the man at the pinnacle of English football and, because he has to deal with a range of high profile people and international bodies will have had intensive scrutiny of his CV on his past record in diplomacy and the like. On top of all that, as I noted above, he is unquestionably, an intelligent and articulate guy. So why would he do this! Was it a mental aberration? Did he just want to be one of the lads? Did he want to give them a thrill? Whatever, although in the great scheme of things it was of minor significance, it was naive, stupid and a superb example of poor judgement. And this is the point – be it the gentleman from the Crown Prosecution Service in Machynnleth, be it the senior police officers involved in the April Jones case, be it Fiona Bruce and the BBC News production team it is pure and simple poor judgement. And when our top people show this it is worrying.
We live in a world where “transparency, openness and accountability” is an oft repeated mantra. Politicians of all persuasions tell us that it is the way forward to ensure a fairer and more open society. It will ensure that big business, politicians and others positions of power and influence – for example the police – act efficiently and correctly and in the best interest of the populace. I think we might all go along with that, but and it is a big but, “transparency, openness and accountability” brings with them a measure of responsibility. Hodgson, I suppose might claim he was being “transparent” in divulging his team selection to fellow train travellers – but it got him into a good deal of trouble, Fiona Bruce might claim she is exercising her “openness” in showing her personal feelings whilst reading the nation’s news. The police and the Crown Prosecutor may well claim that wearing a pink ribbon openly displayed their huge commitment to their cause in finding little April Jones. But all of these examples, in their way, potentially compromised the people involved, and at the same time severely impacted upon the way that they undertook their various duties. In short, that is the “accountable” bit - for if a professional is anything – be he footballer, teacher, brain surgeon, crown prosecutor or policeman he is responsible for his actions and, therefore, accountable for them.
And finally - a late news item! This morning I saw a photo of Prince William and his wife Kate visiting the new National Football Centre. The great and good of the footballing world were there - as were the England team. And the photo........shows William, possibly the future King of England shaking hands with the despicable Ashley Cole - the England player at the centre of another current controversy (brought upon himself) when he recently tweeted an obscene comment about the Football Association. Cole has a track record of bizarre and unacceptable behaviour (including taking an air gun to training and shooting a student!) in both his personal and professional (I use the term loosely) life; and yet here is the future King (who also happens to be the President of the Football Association) shaking hands with the man who only a few days ago scandalised himself, his profession and most of the nation by his obscenities. If William had any sense of professional duty and obligation he would have refused and let it be known that Cole is not acceptable. Instead, however, a smiling Prince said to a smiling Cole "If you keep being a naughty boy we'll take your twitter account away!" In doing so he legitimised Cole's actions and associated himself with them. How's that for trivialising a serious issue and for the future King to be totally lacking in any comprehension of his responsibilities! Young men like Cole will never “mend their ways” – when, just like the jar of jam in my larder they get the royal seal of approval whatever their behaviour. Why should the young drunk men and women on my city’s streets not call out obscene comments to the police or act in a bizarre, immature and gratuitous manner. After all, Ashley Cole does it and within a few days jokes with the future King and President of his profession. I look forward to my local chief constable taking sherry and joking with local miscreants. I would hope that my local chief constable would have rather better professional judgement than our future King and the Football Association which he presides over. But hey! - to do the right thing, to be responsible, be professional to might not be popular, it might look boring to the populace, the tabloid readers and the "X Factor" viewers - and anyway, we all love footballers don't we - no matter what their sins. And the young prince, clearly, wants to be liked and to be a regular guy.
No, in the mad rush to jump on the popular culture bandwagon, in the anxiety of those with power and influence to be seen as “one of the people” with open and transparent views and opinions and reflecting the popular beliefs and opinions of the time there is a huge danger that professional decisions and action will be compromised. What is undoubtedly true is that taking this course of action will lead to further situations of the sort that Roy Hodgson found himself in the other night and for many in high profile, highly professional or responsible positions they will look increasingly foolish and incompetent - and certainly unprofessional. One only needs to look at the current hand wringing at the present "exposures" of ex-disc jockey Jimmy Savile's sex life in the late 20th century. A lot of prominent professionals appear now to be running for cover distancing themselves from the close relationship they had with the man in those years. No, those in positions of responsibility need to take their responsibilities responsibly. Sadly and frighteningly, however, in modern Britain we have a worrying trend away from professionalism and responsibility as everyone wants to appear ordinary "guys and gals" (to coin Jimmy Savile's catchphrase!), popular and in tune with the times - it is a downwards spiral.
A few weeks ago I watched a TV police programme “Inspector George Gently” set in the late 1960s. The programme was, as always, enjoyable and largely, I felt, recaptured the atmosphere of the time. However, at one point I think there was a small slip up in the production. A small child went missing and in the aftermath a collection of flowers, children’s teddies and other toys are left outside the child’s home by friends and neighbours. I may be wrong but my recollections of the times do not include this sort of public display of grief, sympathy or emotion. Even in the swinging sixties the “stiff upper lip” was still, as I remember it, the way British people at least dealt with crises, death, injury or catastrophe.
 |
| Flowers and teddies left outside a house in Inspector Gently's late 60s - not as I remember it! |
Now, it seems, any unfortunate event has to be marked by a public display of emotion and support – and not only by those closest to the deceased or the family concerned. As with Diana’s death people from far and wide will show their sympathy and emotion even though they have no contact with or knowledge of that person. Facebook pages are set up and we read comments like “I will always love you and miss you” – from remote sympathisers with no other contact than the Facebook page! Maybe it does people good to show their emotions in this way. Maybe the “stiff upper lip” approach was not good psychology. Maybe it is good to let it all “hang out”. But, having said that, I also feel that it is bound up with another change in our national psyche – the increasing (it seems to me) deterioration of what I will loosely call “professionalism”.
 |
| Police and Crown Prosecution wear supportive pink ribbons - I'm not sure that ensures totally even handed justice. It does show poor judgement. |
This was all brought home to me over the weekend as I watched one of the TV reports from Machynnleth in Wales as the dreadful story of the missing little girl April Jones unfolded. During the reports of the search for April her parents asked that people should show their support by wearing pink ribbons – pink being April’s favourite colour. We were told by reporters that everywhere in the town was a sea of pink and shops were rapidly running out of pink ribbon. This was all well and good and if this tribute brought some kind of support to the distraught family and kept the profile of the case high in the public imagination then it is clearly a good thing. However, over the weekend the police called a news conference to announce that a man would be charged with April’s murder. At the news conference, the police men and women on view all wore pink ribbons – and, for me what was worse, so did the representative of the Crown Prosecution Service! This cannot be right, it would seem to me that someone in his position (and indeed the police) should not put themselves in the position of potentially “taking sides” or displaying a position that might be interpreted as anything less than totally objective – it is the principle on which our justice system operates. The gentleman concerned was clearly a Welshman – perhaps a local man – and so maybe he felt a particular affinity with this dreadful event. I am sure that his motives were well meant – but they were misguided. He explained what the accused would be charged with and ended by saying “we must, however, remember that the accused is entitled to a fair trial”. He was quite right in this but, no matter how hard I tried, the fact that he was wearing the pink ribbon – a physical manifestation of his loyalty and support for the family of the child at the potential expense of the accused - seemed to detract a little from his objectivity. It was no surprise to me that when I watched the TV footage of the crowds outside the court room having to be held back by police as they tried to get to the van carrying the accused many were wearing pink ribbons. Popularism and popular culture is fine – but it must not be allowed to cloud professional judgement or professional responsibility and compromise objectivity – when that happens we are not far from the rule of the mob and the vigilante.
 |
| Robert Dougall - doyen of newsreaders until he raised his eye brows in disapproval! |
And this trend of compromising objectivity has grown and developed over many years. I well remember about thirty years or so ago. One of the BBC TV newsreaders was a man named Robert Dougall. He was, I suppose, one of the senior readers and in a way “the face” of BBC News. One evening, and I remember this vividly, he reported an item of news and there was a short film clip to accompany the item. At the end of the clip, Dougall sighed and raised his eyebrows, clearly expressing his personal disapproval of the issue being reported. In the days that followed Dougall was chastised because he had, it seemed, brought his personal feelings into what should have been an objective piece of reporting. Today, that would not be an issue. The truly awful Fiona Bruce with her husky tones and “come to bed eyes” each day has a voice and expression for every type of news event she reports. In much the same way that it was claimed some years ago that Tony Blair’s government had “sexed up” the facts about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction so, too, many news readers (most notably Bruce) and channels “sex up” the news to make it more powerful, emotive or eye catching. It is the popularisation of news rather than its objective reporting. Bruce’s style is fine for her comparing of the Antiques Road Show – but not for news reporting. What Bruce (and many others today) provide is an “act” and a subjective “presentation” of the news. Subjective opinion and personal viewpoints have become hopelessly muddled and entangled with objective substance – and when that happens people are influenced for good or ill – by opinion and not by fact. It is how mobs are swayed by clever orators.
 |
| Fiona Bruce - an emotional voice and expression for every bit of news. We all know what she approves of, dislikes or enjoys. |
And finally, one last but different example of this popularisation. In itself of no importance whatsoever when compared with the above – but a telling and a sad indictment of the world we live in. It also highlights well the thin line between professionalism and popularisation.
Last week the England Football Manager, Roy Hodgson went to watch a high profile match at Arsenal. Hodgson is well respected, articulate and thinking man – who generally stands a little aloof from the day to day murky goings on in football. For reasons known only to himself he elected to travel to the game by underground rather than car or taxi. In itself this might be very democratic of him – to travel with the ordinary “punters” - but it brings with it some responsibilities. As England Manager he could have had reserved parking, maybe even a police escort if he really required it but no, it was by public underground he went.
As was always going to happen he was recognised by football fans on the train and in the “banter” that was always going to occur he was asked about the selection of the next England team – and in particular if the player Rio Ferdinand would be playing. For those unfamiliar with football news Ferdinand plays for Manchester United but after an illustrious England career has not played for the national side for some time – partly through injury and partly because of an ongoing dispute about racist remarks between his footballing brother Anton and the England captain John Terry. “Is Rio going to be in the squad” the travelling fans asked Hodgson. The formal announcement of the selected England team was due to be made on the following day. At this point Hodgson could have ignored the question and stuck his head in his newspaper, he could have said “No comment”, he could have said “Look lads, you know I can’t tell you that – read your papers tomorrow and you’ll find out”. That would have been the correct and professional thing to do. Any one of those answers would have solved the problem – the last one the best as the fans concerned would have understood what he was saying but at the same time he would have had made their night by talking to them – they would have all gone home and said to family and friends “Guess what, I talked to Roy Hodgson on the train tonight". It would have been a bit of reflected glory. But no, instead Hodgson said “No, Rio isn’t in the team” and then allegedly went on to say that the player’s England career was over! Unsurprisingly it was front page headlines the day after. Equally understandably Rio Ferdinand was soon expressing his frustration and anger that travellers on the London underground knew of his non-selection before he did – it became a matter of public knowledge and Hodgson was forced to apologise to the player.
 |
| Roy Hodgson - a normally thoughtful man who showed incredibly bad judgement last week. |
Leaving aside the player’s hurt feelings (I suspect that he will soon get over it!) it seems a professionally inept thing for Hodgson to do. Hodgson is extremely well paid, holds a job which is very much in the public eye, is without any shadow of doubt the man at the pinnacle of English football and, because he has to deal with a range of high profile people and international bodies will have had intensive scrutiny of his CV on his past record in diplomacy and the like. On top of all that, as I noted above, he is unquestionably, an intelligent and articulate guy. So why would he do this! Was it a mental aberration? Did he just want to be one of the lads? Did he want to give them a thrill? Whatever, although in the great scheme of things it was of minor significance, it was naive, stupid and a superb example of poor judgement. And this is the point – be it the gentleman from the Crown Prosecution Service in Machynnleth, be it the senior police officers involved in the April Jones case, be it Fiona Bruce and the BBC News production team it is pure and simple poor judgement. And when our top people show this it is worrying.
We live in a world where “transparency, openness and accountability” is an oft repeated mantra. Politicians of all persuasions tell us that it is the way forward to ensure a fairer and more open society. It will ensure that big business, politicians and others positions of power and influence – for example the police – act efficiently and correctly and in the best interest of the populace. I think we might all go along with that, but and it is a big but, “transparency, openness and accountability” brings with them a measure of responsibility. Hodgson, I suppose might claim he was being “transparent” in divulging his team selection to fellow train travellers – but it got him into a good deal of trouble, Fiona Bruce might claim she is exercising her “openness” in showing her personal feelings whilst reading the nation’s news. The police and the Crown Prosecutor may well claim that wearing a pink ribbon openly displayed their huge commitment to their cause in finding little April Jones. But all of these examples, in their way, potentially compromised the people involved, and at the same time severely impacted upon the way that they undertook their various duties. In short, that is the “accountable” bit - for if a professional is anything – be he footballer, teacher, brain surgeon, crown prosecutor or policeman he is responsible for his actions and, therefore, accountable for them.
 |
| "Hi, Ashley, I'm your future King - see you got into a bit of trouble the other day when you called the Football Association t***s. But don't worry, I'm the next King and President of the FA. Don't worry the punters will love you, I love you and never forget, yesterday's news is today's fish and chip papers. It'll soon blowover - till, like Jimmy Savile it blows up in your face"! |
And finally - a late news item! This morning I saw a photo of Prince William and his wife Kate visiting the new National Football Centre. The great and good of the footballing world were there - as were the England team. And the photo........shows William, possibly the future King of England shaking hands with the despicable Ashley Cole - the England player at the centre of another current controversy (brought upon himself) when he recently tweeted an obscene comment about the Football Association. Cole has a track record of bizarre and unacceptable behaviour (including taking an air gun to training and shooting a student!) in both his personal and professional (I use the term loosely) life; and yet here is the future King (who also happens to be the President of the Football Association) shaking hands with the man who only a few days ago scandalised himself, his profession and most of the nation by his obscenities. If William had any sense of professional duty and obligation he would have refused and let it be known that Cole is not acceptable. Instead, however, a smiling Prince said to a smiling Cole "If you keep being a naughty boy we'll take your twitter account away!" In doing so he legitimised Cole's actions and associated himself with them. How's that for trivialising a serious issue and for the future King to be totally lacking in any comprehension of his responsibilities! Young men like Cole will never “mend their ways” – when, just like the jar of jam in my larder they get the royal seal of approval whatever their behaviour. Why should the young drunk men and women on my city’s streets not call out obscene comments to the police or act in a bizarre, immature and gratuitous manner. After all, Ashley Cole does it and within a few days jokes with the future King and President of his profession. I look forward to my local chief constable taking sherry and joking with local miscreants. I would hope that my local chief constable would have rather better professional judgement than our future King and the Football Association which he presides over. But hey! - to do the right thing, to be responsible, be professional to might not be popular, it might look boring to the populace, the tabloid readers and the "X Factor" viewers - and anyway, we all love footballers don't we - no matter what their sins. And the young prince, clearly, wants to be liked and to be a regular guy.
 |
| All the top people wanted a bit of Savile's glory - but they're all running for cover now! |
No comments:
Post a Comment