Defined as searching for and exposing misconduct in public life, mud-raking journalism has been used for hundreds of years as a form of exposing scandals that are both in the interest of the public and of public interest. Problems arise when this form of journalism ignores the second consideration in order to increase its sales through scandal-mongering; often directed at the members of our society least equipped to respond to the media storm sent their way. Arguably the Daily Mail is one of the most prominently guilty of such attacks within the British Media.
The moral issue I have with the Daily Mail stems not so much from the prominence of gossip or scandal-based articles both online and in print, but rather the from the sheer extent to which its subjects are pursued. It seems that the Mail has become a self appointed deliverer of public justice and outrage on the subject of benefit fraud, immigrants and many other easy targets. Articles have tended to become not so much an exposé than a form of retribution in their own right. The dogged determination in an effort to not 'let them get away with it' has led to many articles on MailOnline being updated daily with further damning 'evidence' provided by neighbours, family and 'friends', all looking to cash in on the witch hunt. With the growing usage of multi-platform news sharing, articles are no longer confined to the news sites they appear on; they are shared on Facebook, Twitter, embedded into other sites, referenced in blogs, Youtube videos and more. Today's news in no longer merely tomorrow's chip paper, instead people's names are permanently digitally tarred.
The difficulty in stopping this from happening is quite simply that the victims are not seen as victims. The are seen as utterly reproachable. Lowest of the low. Scum of the earth. They are portrayed as the very dregs of our society- the reason that our taxes are rising, the reason that there are no jobs, the reason we are struggling. And it is at this stage of thinking that all standards of ethical journalism are lost. But why should that matter... after all these people deserve everything they get, don't they? There is a very clear and important difference between exposing people and wishing for them to be punished and the daily mail strategy of turning their name to mud and driving them to as much emotional stress as is possible.
A good recent example of the relentless attacks perpetrated by the Daily Mail is the story of unemployed and benefit claiming Heather Frost, who featured heavily in the Mail back in February this year for having a large council house built for her and her brood of 11 children. The initial article soon expanded by more than nine further naming and shaming articles in the following fortnight. The 'defendant's' father, neighbours and even neighbours' families all contributed to the attacks aimed at Ms Frost. I recall following the updated reports with a growing sense of disgust at the attack and a genuine sense of concern for the family involved. People have killed themselves over far less than the public shaming to which the Daily Mail subjects people.
The question has arisen in my mind however (when reading the comment sections of articles such as these) about who is really to blame for the growing popularity of this form of journalism. Is it merely a case of increasing supply to meet an ever-increasing demand? For thousands of years humans have seemed to achieve a large amount of personal satisfaction from watching another receive punishment. There is a clear progression from the gladiator style fights to the death and the crowds at live executions to the glee many people feel when watching somebody fall from grace and die a social death- ostracised by society, friends and even their own families.
Nevertheless, with an average daily readership of approximately 4.371million, this recognition makes it even more important for the Mail to recognize its influence and the negative risks this poses alongside the success it brings. This is not an article blaming the Mail for causing this style of investigation, but one questioning its disregard for the consequences of embracing it. FDR stated in a speech he was never able to give that 'great power involves great responsibility'- something which is sadly and dangerously missing from the Daily Mail's approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment