Pretty in Print

How many newspapers do you buy? On average my surrogate university family would purchase a Guardian (the most lefty of the UK newspapers) every couple of days, always getting the weekend issues so each member of the household could enjoy the glossy but shallow supplements they felt best represented them and their “lifestyle choices”. We stick loyally to our news brand, often without fully understanding why. I imagine its through some faint sense of belonging to a readership made up mostly of current and ex-university students, some trying to get a life, others trying to relive one, old habits dying hard.

My parents read the Daily Mail (a red-top in sheep’s clothing) another “lifestyle choice” I can’t quite understand, both of them being ex-university students. However I believe they both voted labour so perhaps that explains it. But regardless of the Mail’s dubious claims I respect their right to buy it and even their attempt to read it, despite the fact its’ reputation is at best, much derided. Discussing with much astonishment Prince’s decision to give away his latest album for free with the paper, a certain music critic for the Independent on Sunday once brilliantly referred to the paper as ‘Fascism in a cardigan”

All this pondering led me to conduct a kind of aesthetic experiment. Having a discussion with one of my former flatmates, Colonel Shaughan, currently in exile somewhere in Europe (debating competition) in which he sagely pointed out to me the differences between the appearance of the two newspapers (in doing so highlighting the age old content debate between the tabloids and broadsheets, the Guardian being something of mid-size broadsheet) Semi-intrigued, I went out on a brief recce and purchased today’s copy of each paper in order to strike a concrete comparison.

The best way to start, I feel, is in the classical fashion of our morning BBC news reports, by comparing the day’s main headlines; this gives a strong indication of both the overall vision of the paper, what they feel is the most burning current issue, and the sort of topics they feel to be more newsworthy in general. For example:

The Guardian said:

(subtitle in brackets)

‘Mugabe has declared war and we will not be part of that war’

(Tsvangirai withdraws his party from election saying to continue would cost supporters’ lives)

The Daily mail said:

FEAR FOR GIRLS AS THE PILL IS SOLD ONLINE

(Contraceptives available on official website)

Before I go scratching too deeply beneath the surface, as to the content of the respective headlines, fascinating as the divergence is, I want to briefly mention the way the pages look. Both feature a “free” item, (v.f.m for tight middle England) The Guardian has a “Great Songwriters” booklet on Morrissey, the Daily Mail an ancient Michael Caine film, both dubious choices when viewed under different critical lights. The main picture on The Guardian is of a torn poster featuring Morgan Tsvangirai, to represent his loss in voter support and his subsequent stepdown from the electoral process in Zimbabwe. The Mail has a tall picture of the Tennis player, Maria Sharapova, with a caption commenting on her decision to wear shorts at Wimbledon, not the usual skirts expected of female players, so “admirers” will be unable to fully appreciate her “shapely legs”.

So, there is a vital difference between the two papers already, whilst the Guardian ably chooses a picture that in some way represents the essence of their headline, the main story of the paper, The Mail has a completely unrelated picture of a Tennis player that could be viewed as a bit sexist/shallow, depending upon your own persuasion. Unless Miss Sharapova were actually on the pill and was getting it for free from a UK website I can’t see any reason for her, or her legs, to be anywhere near the front page of a national(ist) newspaper, because she has no bearing on the headline, whatsoever.

You could easily argue with me and claim that the picture on the front doesn’t have to be representative in any way of the main article etc. To an extent I would agree with this, it is primarily an aesthetic choice, but what a choice the Mail made! It makes a lot of sense to attempt at some synthesis between words and pictures if only to better communicate the intent of the article, to overall reflect the spirit of the times.

The Guardian’s picture of ripped apart Tsvangirai suggests desperation and a sense of loss at his (ultimately forced) withdrawal from the Zimbabwe elections, a quiet death for democracy in a country where cries for foreign intervention continue to go almost completely unheeded. This is journalism intended to educate and inspire, to raise awareness of human suffering and need.

By comparison the picture of Sharapova is another example of limp totty for middle-aged execs (apologies Ms.) which gives me nothing (certainly not an erection) about the story of free contraception being made more widely available for a younger, more computer literate generation, not an especially well represented demographic in the hallowed pages of the Mail.

Now onto the headlines themselves; The Guardian has a quote from Morgan Tsvangirai, the (former) leader of the political opposition to Robert Mugabe. Whilst this isn’t terribly original, being a quote and therefore not strictly written by the journalist themselves, it is probably the most newsworthy thing to be reported today, there is a common consensus behind this in the fact that most of today’s papers featured a similar headline, certainly, almost all of the nationals focused on this issue. The Daily Mail, on the other hand, put it on page 6, with a real big picture to fill up the space.

The Guardian’s headline is neat and to the point, as is the Mail’s, but moving beyond appearance and into the “realm of ideas” the Guardian’s headline at least contains some information about a specific situation. By comparison the Mail’s headline, warning us, once again, with foreboding and gloom, of the latest social threat to this great nation of ours (this time it’s free contraception). This is clearly emphasised in their frankly gigantic big bold lettering written in CAPITAL letters leaving barely any room for actual content, that is; meaningful information you can take home with you (after reading some Guardian articles I feel compelled to spill my statistical guts to anyone who can be made to listen). Although big writing is much easier to read so that’s a bonus.

The main problem, however, with the Daily Mail’s headline is not just its vulgar appearance but its dumb content. Not even the subtitle tells me who or what company is offering the pill over the internet so as a Whitehouse loyalist I don’t even know who to deride or protest against. The fact that the Mail waste so much space cramming in the epic and yet vague headline leaving little room for the article itself (it is crammed into flat, page-wide “columns”) suggests both a lack of ideas, but more importantly a dangerous habit toward sloganeering. As shown with the Sun and the other tabloids, bulls may not see red but humans seem positively magnetised toward it. And very much like the bull they seem doomed to follow its every flutter. If a tabloid paper gives you a thick black headline tarring the latest individual or organisation then it follows that I have no real need to read the one paragraph article, all I need to do is accept what I’m reading prima facie, and follow the red paedo trail all the way to the court/gallows and some kind of justice will be done, one way or the other.

My point being, if you print inflammatory, not informative headlines, then yes you will get a reaction, but it won’t necessarily be the “right” one, or at least a deserved one. Just because a headline is provocative it does not dictate that someone will buy the paper and read the article no matter how good it is, papers on newsstands are all competing for attention so they have to be eye-catching and interesting, that’s partly how the industry works, I’m just not sure if that’s all it should be, as in the case of the Mail. Reactionary words, even if they don’t lead to action, almost always have consequences.

In closing, I can’t see the point in newspapers that only tell half the story. Its good to warn or advise people of things that they might not know about, or to point out interesting cultural trends or situations (such as the difference between good newspapers and bad ones) but to my mind the main reason to have a free press is to inform and to raise opinion and debate, but not to do so in a way that causes harms to others, and create problems or issues out of nothing. When people keep looking for fires where they think they see smoke, they begin to start fires of their own.

N.B. Due to geographical limitations, and borders restrained by national pride, the issues featured in today’s paper refer to the “Scottish” Daily Mail, which I’m sure is just as good as its southern bastard cousin.

P.S. Kudos to Colonel Shaughan for his Buddha-like temperance and wilful ideas.