The social work view of the latest media frenzy around Baby Peter once again raises the spectre of the media’s motivation for using the defence of ‘public interest’. The release of the names of those convicted of the murder of this child was driven primarily by a range of media claiming that publication was in the public interest.
Predominently the ‘interested’ are:
- those whose primary job it is to line the pockets of their billionaire proprietors or cling on to their audience ratings
- the ignorant minority who has nothing better to do than reportedly demonstrate their ‘interest’ on Facebook with calls to persecute, torture and kill those who are no longer afforded legal annonymity following pressure from… see 1. above.
Let me state, very clearly, that I carry no torch for child abusers or abusers of any kind. Net.Mentor is involved in the training of foster carers and other adults who devote themselves on a daily basis to working with vulnerable children who have suffered abuse in their formative years; abuse which – even if non-physical – can lead to physical changes in the brain. Recognising and understanding the issues surrounding these children, and the people that have abused them, will positively transform the lives of both the children and their carers and properly protect others that may be at risk. Firebombing people’s houses will not.
I have also worked as a journalist and in media relations long enough to understand what makes a ‘good’ story. However, I have witnessed first hand the devastation caused to individuals and their families ‘identified’ by the media and/or ‘interested’ neighbours as being connected with child abuse. The News of the World naming and shaming campaign in 2001, which used indistinct (and often out of date) images, led to many completely innocent victims of lynchmob hysteria.
I spent three depressing days working with a crisis management team to help one of those victims as they were hounded by both media and neighbours bent on misguided ‘revenge’, based on wrongful identification from an image that bore no possible resemblence to the individual concerned. All, of course, in the name of ‘public interest’.
Those involved in the tragic Baby Peter case have been found guilty of their crimes – fact! They face long prison sentences – almost certainly in isolation – I hope they are never allowed out. But what benefit, or interest, is there in publishing their details?
Moral panics are nothing new – Stan Cohen first coined the term in 1972, refering to the Mods and Rockers battles in the 1960s when reaction by Brighton’s chattering classes developed into government debates and mass, UK-wide hysteria. Asking the media to act responsibly to prevent fuelling, or even starting, the fires of moral panic is like asking them to stop breathing. Witness the recent coverage of the credit crunch and swine flu.
So what hope? It can only be the small voice of informed reason continuing to shout as loudly as possible in the vain hope that mawkish, voyeuristic ‘public interest’ might turn into better informed audiences demanding better reporting standards from its media and better trained professionals to prevent cases like Baby Peter being allowed to happen in the first place.
Peter Brill
Peter – I agree with you entirely about the “public interest” here and motivation of the mainstream media. However, in the social media world, the names were already out there for anyone able to Google. Keeping cats in bags is no longer going to be possible. It would be nice to think that those who were so concerned to form Facebook (lynchmob) groups after the death of this poor child, could be as active in monitoring their own neighbours and helping bring about real social networking. That might help those parents who are struggling to cope (rather than downright sadistic as in this situation) if they had a network of people they could turn to.
Interestingly one of the Diploma students is looking at her dissertation on the topic of PR/communications in reputational management of children’s social services in the light of this recent tragedy.
That raises another question about how the media furore helps (or doesn’t) such protect such children in future.
Clearly there is evidence that the media frenzy has raised the level of debate of child protection. Sadly, as with many moral panics, this has led to knee-jerk reaction, accusation and rushed legislation/guidelines.
On the positive side, it has highlighted the fact that child protection is the responsibility of everyone and not just police and social workers, but this needs to be fulfilled from a position of understanding. .
Much of what you say is true. But there is one fatal flaw in the argument. It is that the names of the accused were widely known – and widely publicised – on the web long before the traditional media were allowed to publish. Are we to say that it’s OK to publish unofficially and in an unregulated, unmediated environment, but that the traditonal media must be muzzled?
There is a legitimate public interest in naming and shaming offenders of all types and this cannot be dependent on whether or not that places those offenders in jeopardy. The (difficult) argument about anonymity in some sex cases and those in which children are involved is about protecting trhe innocent, and not about protecting the guilty.
Is the traditional media to be blamed for the over-reaction of BNP types who would rather hang em, flog em or lynch em than trust the proper mechanisms of democratic legislation? If we regulate that, we end up with a supine and pointless mockery of a media and we might as well move to Iran… where, by the way, there is plenty of ‘knee jerk reaction, accusation and rushed legislation.
I am not sure that the choice we have is between a more responsible media and moving to Iran. If only they would keep to their own Code of Conduct, that would be a start.
I agree with Heather that it is a shame that the people who are inspired to firebomb houses aren’t more responsible about caring about children in abusive situations. The 50 or so people who saw Jamie Bulger being led to his death and did not interfere were happy to tell their story and no doubt to call for the life imprisonment of the two children who killed him.
The fact we are able to openly debate and discuss such a subject in the very same medium is again an interesting sociological situation
Fair points from all. While I totally accept Magnus’ comment about the challenge of online versus traditional media – and where ‘gagging orders’ now have limited if any value, I must take issue with his point about anonymity.
Yes, it is about protecting the innocent, but equally, as Alison quite rightly points out, the legitimacy of naming and shaming is one that predominantly leads to an abdication of responsibility by the general public. “It’s OK, the law will protect us and now we know who they are, behind bars and, generally, isn’t a friend or relative, we can all rest easy”. Sure there has to be a balance between ‘curtain twitching’ and informed and reasonable intervention, but marching with pitchforks and burning torches is off the scale.