In 1989, English football had its worst ever tragedy. In an FA Cup semifinal match between Nottingham Forest and Liverpool Football Club held at Hillsborough in Sheffield, there was a miscommunication and horrific mistake made by the police about the opening of the gates to let fans in and since the stadium was standing room only, eventually the poor policing led to a human crush at the metal fence at the bottom of the stand, resulting in the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans. 96 people went to a football match and never returned.
The fallout after the disaster was immense. It's important to note that in the late 80s, football hooliganism and violence at matches was just now on its way out, so some people were quick to make the conclusion that it was the fault of the fans that day. Many publications took this idea and ran with it, condemning the morality of the Liverpool fans and blaming them for the deaths of the 96.
The most notorious of these reports came from Rupert Murdoch's The Sun which released an absolutely vicious series of accusations against the Liverpool fans labeled "THE TRUTH" which went on to enumerate how the fans were all incredibly intoxicated and urinated on the bodies of the dead while also punching and kicking rescue workers who were trying to help. None of this was at all true and it only served to spread misinformation about the disaster and to make the victims' families suffer even more.
Immediately the Liverpool market shut down almost all circulation of The Sun and it still to this very day sells incredibly few copies in Liverpool, despite multiple times of the paper trying to issue an apology but being rebuffed by the ongoing boycott. It just goes to show how quickly a public can turn on you and how they may never trust you again. Journalistic integrity may not mean a lot to these people but I'm sure sales do and they're regretting having ever published any of that.
Something I learned firsthand in my time in Liverpool was that its people are not ones who forget or forgive easily. There's an enormous memorial with all of the names of the Hillsborough victims as well as an eternal flame lit in their memory. It's a beautifully somber reminder of how Liverpool cherish their fans. And as I walk into the stadium that Sunday I notice something else: a tatted-up Scouser with a giant logo of The Sun on the back of his neck marked with a big red circle and a line going through it. It's amazing to see just how horrible a publication could be towards a group of people they knew almost nothing about and to see just how much of an impact that can make on a community and the media that they consume. It's not every day that you see a publication completely at odds with an entire community.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Football Coverage in the British Media
For most of my life up until around 2010 I would've said I was a sports fan, but I never truly fell in love with a sport until the World Cup in South Africa. Here was something almost completely new to me, not the childish kick-arounds that I had watched for years in the American suburbs but instead a fast-paced, dramatic and thrilling contest that was unique in how global its appeal was.
The following fall I began to consume every little bit I could about the sport and the leagues that went on during the rest of the year, eventually growing very attached to the English Premier League and more specifically a club in southwest London called Chelsea.
The Premier League is a unique beast in world football: it has the highest quality players culled from all over the globe and is one of the most hotly contested leagues anywhere in the world. Luckily all this competition ends up leading to a lot of drama on and off the pitch, and reading the British press and the tabloids can be both an entertaining ad sometimes even frustrating experience for football fans.
Firstly how they treat the transfer of players to different clubs is one of the most dramatic and exciting story lines the tabloids can get their hands on, so often times the less-respected papers will publish almost ludicrous rumors in order to spark either controversy or simply drive up sales/page views. Once you get used to not trusting all of the British publications you start forming a hierarchy of trustworthiness if you want to know if something's actually going to happen in the transfer market. There's probably no equivalent to something like this in the States, where pretty much any speculation is never too far-fetched and usually based in at least some truth. there are far fewer outlets to get your hardcore sports news in America, with ESPN being the bastion of trustworthiness in the sports media. There's really no such mogul in the UK, leaving reporting and speculation able to run wild. And while it sometimes can be frustrating to know what you're reading may not be true, it's still a wonderful form of entertainment to even speculate.
One thing that really struck me about reading press surrounding the England national team and their manager was and still is quite pessimistic and negative when they aren't in the World Cup. The tabloids skewer tactics by the manager, mock the inconsistency of their players and have a general pessimistic attitude about their prospects as a team.
The thing is, they're not wrong. England is probably one of the teams that underperforms the most when you look at the caliber of the players they have. Their manager does seem to be tactically inefficient and almost lost when England need a "plan B." But it's difficult for me to imagine this kind of negative mentality surrounding any national team in America. I'd say there was almost negative surrounding the US men's national team at this World Cup (although admittedly we had a fantastic run in the tournament) but I think it'd be completely out of place if American journalists constantly hounded our coach and players and made them look foolish all the time.
Now admittedly the English probably expect more out of their team since they did win a World Cup in 1966 and they are the inventors of the sport to begin with, but it's as if when they make the tiniest mistake the press throws them into the lions' den.
So basically the English tabloids treats sport like it treats many other things: with little regard for trustworthiness or information, but stacked high with entertainment value and also venom for the people they don't care for. Luis Suarez's (the infamous biter at the World Cup) agent even claimed the English press was a big reason Luis wanted to leave for Barcelona, even though that may not be entirely true. But the fact is that the sport of soccer is easily suited to the atmosphere of the English press. It's the world's most dramatic and games, goals, sending offs and even bitings can often spread around the world now that the Internet is able to spread them so quickly. Tabloids could have only dreamt about all the crazy things that would happen at this year's World Cup and it seems to me that the drama of the sport and the sensationalism of the newspapers are meant for each other.
The following fall I began to consume every little bit I could about the sport and the leagues that went on during the rest of the year, eventually growing very attached to the English Premier League and more specifically a club in southwest London called Chelsea.
The Premier League is a unique beast in world football: it has the highest quality players culled from all over the globe and is one of the most hotly contested leagues anywhere in the world. Luckily all this competition ends up leading to a lot of drama on and off the pitch, and reading the British press and the tabloids can be both an entertaining ad sometimes even frustrating experience for football fans.
Firstly how they treat the transfer of players to different clubs is one of the most dramatic and exciting story lines the tabloids can get their hands on, so often times the less-respected papers will publish almost ludicrous rumors in order to spark either controversy or simply drive up sales/page views. Once you get used to not trusting all of the British publications you start forming a hierarchy of trustworthiness if you want to know if something's actually going to happen in the transfer market. There's probably no equivalent to something like this in the States, where pretty much any speculation is never too far-fetched and usually based in at least some truth. there are far fewer outlets to get your hardcore sports news in America, with ESPN being the bastion of trustworthiness in the sports media. There's really no such mogul in the UK, leaving reporting and speculation able to run wild. And while it sometimes can be frustrating to know what you're reading may not be true, it's still a wonderful form of entertainment to even speculate.
One thing that really struck me about reading press surrounding the England national team and their manager was and still is quite pessimistic and negative when they aren't in the World Cup. The tabloids skewer tactics by the manager, mock the inconsistency of their players and have a general pessimistic attitude about their prospects as a team.
The thing is, they're not wrong. England is probably one of the teams that underperforms the most when you look at the caliber of the players they have. Their manager does seem to be tactically inefficient and almost lost when England need a "plan B." But it's difficult for me to imagine this kind of negative mentality surrounding any national team in America. I'd say there was almost negative surrounding the US men's national team at this World Cup (although admittedly we had a fantastic run in the tournament) but I think it'd be completely out of place if American journalists constantly hounded our coach and players and made them look foolish all the time.
Now admittedly the English probably expect more out of their team since they did win a World Cup in 1966 and they are the inventors of the sport to begin with, but it's as if when they make the tiniest mistake the press throws them into the lions' den.
So basically the English tabloids treats sport like it treats many other things: with little regard for trustworthiness or information, but stacked high with entertainment value and also venom for the people they don't care for. Luis Suarez's (the infamous biter at the World Cup) agent even claimed the English press was a big reason Luis wanted to leave for Barcelona, even though that may not be entirely true. But the fact is that the sport of soccer is easily suited to the atmosphere of the English press. It's the world's most dramatic and games, goals, sending offs and even bitings can often spread around the world now that the Internet is able to spread them so quickly. Tabloids could have only dreamt about all the crazy things that would happen at this year's World Cup and it seems to me that the drama of the sport and the sensationalism of the newspapers are meant for each other.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Americanization of Amsterdam
Last weekend on my way to Amsterdam, I met a few guys about our age on the ferry was talking with them about a music festival that was happening in town that they were attending and I was thinking about going to. We somehow got onto the topic of music and throughout the whole conversation, they wanted to talk about American bands more than the European ones I was trying to ask them about. I think I knew more than they did. I figured that might be a fluke, until I had a similar experience the next day with a different group of girls from Amsterdam. All of a sudden I noticed how abundant American references were within the culture. A girl at our restaurant was wearing a Boston T-shirt, but couldn't tell us what state the city was in when someone asked. McDonald's ads were everywhere, but I could find almost none for other restaurants (especially anything local). The American flag was thrown across tons of fashion items in nearly every store we went into, and when we looked at the newspapers, there was a hugely disproportionate focus on American news (especially entertainment related stories). When I told a guy on one of our tours that I was in a sorority, he started asking me really specific questions about the ABC Family show Greek and the movie The House Bunny... questions I couldn't even answer. I overheard a group of definitely non-American friends talking about how they wanted to throw an America themed party for 4th of July next year. For such a short weekend, it seemed like I was immersed in huge group of Americans and merely placed within the geographic context another city, with probably even more examples of American culture pervading the lifestyle than I can readily remember. It was almost a reverse culture shock, as it seems natural to have the British-American culture sharing dynamic, but very unusual to have such a huge presence in a place like the Netherlands. It was incredibly interesting to see how prevalent and popular we were in their culture, considering the total lack of influence they have on our entertainment, our news, our fashion, and our lives.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
The White Devil
Yesterday, my Shakespeare and performance class took a trip to Stratford-Upon-Avon to see Webster's The White Devil. I didn't know anything about the play, but I over heard some people saying they looked it up and it was called a "revenge drama" and that it contained a lot of violence and sex. I thought it was ironic that we were seeing a play that featured these topics since we just covered them in class.
As a special treat, we were able to go to the director's talk before the play. The director was a young, thin, blonde with short hair and a welcoming smile. Her and the interviewer discussed as much of the play as they could without giving too much away to those who had not yet seen it. It was very fascinating to hear about how the director chose to place it in an abstract modern-era, just as it would have been in Webster's time. She touched on her choice to incorporate video into the play, but what was most interesting was when she discussed how she handled the violence in the play.
The play itself is incredibly violent especially to women which she said she felt with in a variety of ways. One was that she actually changed the gender of one of the characters from a female to a male. Surprisingly enough, this character was the most misogynistic. The director said she wanted a woman to play this role because she felt like it highlighted the way society abused women verbally because we hear the words more when a woman is saying them.
In terms of the physical violence, she wanted to remind the viewer that it was just reconstruction of violence not real violence because it is a play and you are so drawn into it she did not want the viewer to be horrified when someone was stabbed or shot. She achieved this reminder that it is all a show by having one of the actors dress on stage and put a fake blood bag in their garments in front of the audience.
Another interesting thing about the performance was that it involves a child. The director said it was quite difficult to maneuver having young boy around so much verbal and physical violence. She said she tried to cut down on how much he saw while on stage, and while he was off stage he was kept in a separate area and could only be brought out at specific times when it was appropriate. I liked that the director took such measures to ensure that she kept the little boy away from violence as much as possible. I feel like this does not happen nearly as much with someone's own parents at home, so is it up to the parents to shield children from violence? Or is it a job for society?
As a special treat, we were able to go to the director's talk before the play. The director was a young, thin, blonde with short hair and a welcoming smile. Her and the interviewer discussed as much of the play as they could without giving too much away to those who had not yet seen it. It was very fascinating to hear about how the director chose to place it in an abstract modern-era, just as it would have been in Webster's time. She touched on her choice to incorporate video into the play, but what was most interesting was when she discussed how she handled the violence in the play.
The play itself is incredibly violent especially to women which she said she felt with in a variety of ways. One was that she actually changed the gender of one of the characters from a female to a male. Surprisingly enough, this character was the most misogynistic. The director said she wanted a woman to play this role because she felt like it highlighted the way society abused women verbally because we hear the words more when a woman is saying them.
In terms of the physical violence, she wanted to remind the viewer that it was just reconstruction of violence not real violence because it is a play and you are so drawn into it she did not want the viewer to be horrified when someone was stabbed or shot. She achieved this reminder that it is all a show by having one of the actors dress on stage and put a fake blood bag in their garments in front of the audience.
Another interesting thing about the performance was that it involves a child. The director said it was quite difficult to maneuver having young boy around so much verbal and physical violence. She said she tried to cut down on how much he saw while on stage, and while he was off stage he was kept in a separate area and could only be brought out at specific times when it was appropriate. I liked that the director took such measures to ensure that she kept the little boy away from violence as much as possible. I feel like this does not happen nearly as much with someone's own parents at home, so is it up to the parents to shield children from violence? Or is it a job for society?
Stereotypes in British Media
On my way back from Amsterdam, I picked up a free copy of the Sunday Mirror at the airport to glance at on the ride back to oxford. One thing that stood out to me was the way women were portrayed in the paper. Every single picture of a women either featured her in a revealing outfit, comforting her male partner, or holding a child. Alarmed by this depiction of women, I did some research to find out if the Sunday Mirror was an abnormal representation of the media in the UK. Unfortunately, this publication fits right in with the norm.
An article I read on the Guardian stated that "78 percent of all front-page articles" were written by men, and "84 percent of those mentioned or quoted in lead pieces" were also men (2012). Of course, if an industry is dominated by men, it will possess an masculine view. Even the BBC director general stated that the BBC has "faced pressure over its treatment of women on screen. The corporation now realizes how damaging it can be to the male and female public when women are portrayed in sexists ways. There need to be more female writers in the United Kingdom in order for the newspaper article to represent women in the way they crave to be represented in(2012).
article: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/14/sexist-stereotypes-front-pages-newspapers
"Go Fun Yourself", etc.
Like some of the other posters on this blog, to me one of the most interestingly obvious contrasts between the attitudes of Brits and Americans as a whole towards certain media is the reception of suggestive content. Overt sexuality and profanity still isn't accepted as a cultural norm (unlike Amsterdam, where I spent a weekend getting unintentionally exposed to LOTS of things I had never seen floating around unassumingly in broad daylight), but it seems like the use of "subtle" innuendos is a lot less subtle and a lot less controlled than it would be back in the States.
On one daytrip into London, I happened to look out the window as a double decker bus drove by. A seemingly innocuous ad for some type of ice cream was plastered across the side... at least it seemed innocuous until I read the huge text emblazoned underneath the brand name. I'm not 100 percent sure what the promotion with the ice cream itself was (I think they were calling attention to a new chocolate cone or something along those lines) but I definitely remember the tagline- "On top is still great, but now the bottom is even better". Obviously they were making comments about the normal part of the ice cream and the new type of cone, but there were definitely identifiable provocative undertones. When I looked it up later it was apparently part of Wall's Ice Cream's "Goodbye Serious" ad campaign.
On another trip, I saw a set of billboards with matching car advertisements for Toyota in different colors. The design was really cute and simplistic, which ended up contrastingly greatly with the way I first read the tagline. On second glance I realized that the signs said "go fun yourself" instead of what I originally read, but it was kind of shocking to me how nearly explicit and how direct of a reference it was. There was no question as to what thought the wordplay was meant to elicit, and I couldn't obvious and visible the ads were to the public.
The content displayed to the masses here in Britain, especially that I've seen in advertising, seems to be the kind that would cause huge amounts of controversy in the US, especially with parents. Here, however, it's mere presence makes it seem as if it's to be taken as nothing but good-natured humor. Maybe adults assume the references will go over the heads of children, or maybe they're less protective in the ways that American adults are. Either way, although they may have made my mouth drop, I won't be forgetting these ads anytime soon, so I guess they've done their jobs.
On one daytrip into London, I happened to look out the window as a double decker bus drove by. A seemingly innocuous ad for some type of ice cream was plastered across the side... at least it seemed innocuous until I read the huge text emblazoned underneath the brand name. I'm not 100 percent sure what the promotion with the ice cream itself was (I think they were calling attention to a new chocolate cone or something along those lines) but I definitely remember the tagline- "On top is still great, but now the bottom is even better". Obviously they were making comments about the normal part of the ice cream and the new type of cone, but there were definitely identifiable provocative undertones. When I looked it up later it was apparently part of Wall's Ice Cream's "Goodbye Serious" ad campaign.
On another trip, I saw a set of billboards with matching car advertisements for Toyota in different colors. The design was really cute and simplistic, which ended up contrastingly greatly with the way I first read the tagline. On second glance I realized that the signs said "go fun yourself" instead of what I originally read, but it was kind of shocking to me how nearly explicit and how direct of a reference it was. There was no question as to what thought the wordplay was meant to elicit, and I couldn't obvious and visible the ads were to the public.
The content displayed to the masses here in Britain, especially that I've seen in advertising, seems to be the kind that would cause huge amounts of controversy in the US, especially with parents. Here, however, it's mere presence makes it seem as if it's to be taken as nothing but good-natured humor. Maybe adults assume the references will go over the heads of children, or maybe they're less protective in the ways that American adults are. Either way, although they may have made my mouth drop, I won't be forgetting these ads anytime soon, so I guess they've done their jobs.
"That Song Says WHAT Over Here?"
In my previous blog post I discussed language barriers due to slang phrases and various uses of words. I'd like to continue with cultural differences but this time with overall media content.
America as a whole tends to have the stigma of being liberal and rather loose, while the British are stereotyped as posh, snobby and refined. In actuality, the roles are reversed when it comes to the content put out by the media. In addition to large amounts of PDA, Europeans are also more accepting of cursing and other language we would find inappropriate. While in the bus driving toward our excursion on Thursday the BBC radio station was playing. When a song by a British group that is also popular in the US came on, I was surprised to hear one of the essential words in the chorus changed from the ones I was familiar with. The song always had sexual implications, but this change made it blatantly obvious. It was also played during the morning commune when children are likely to hear it before school, so it was not child censored like most stations in the US. It's interesting to see that they don't worry about exposing kids to particular media or seem to think that the messages they contain will alter their thoughts.
Let's not forget about the British tabloids. Even the reputable newspapers are riddled with gossip column-type stories. As an outsider, it can be difficult to distinguish between fact and smut. Back home we have it clearly defined which print medium you go to when you want factual information and when you want gossip. The two never intertwine like they do in many newspapers here. Also the appearances of newspapers themselves can be misleading. Back home we associate flakey paper and bold prints with tabloids, sometimes with bright colors and even odd fonts. Some of the newspapers here that are modeled in a similar way are actually the reputable ones to believe where the crisp, uniformed looking ones are the one to give you gossip. Just goes to show you can’t always judge a book by its cover!
Actually I find it odd that I’m talking about newspapers. Back home, aside from working on art projects, newspapers are fairly obsolete in my life. It’s a sad fact, but a true one. I’ve grown up in a generation that is all about technology. With google, twitter, and other social media sites, I have become accustomed to always having information at my fingertips and multiple sources to verify stories. Living in England this summer it’s been very, very different. At Trinity I don’t even have a television easily available to me unless I fight to use the one in the beer cellar, which is usually full of other students during the time of the evening news. Yes, we technically have wifi on campus, but I’ll be blunt – it’s of poor quality and is unreliable. (Three cheers for Ethernet chords!) To find information you really have to take the time to sit down, find a good connection, and patiently search for it. And often times when you want to know things or catch glimpses of a story it’s while you’re out and walking the streets. I think I’ve really taken this access for granted and find myself feeling out of touch when I do catch new information.
The whole experience of being unattached to my iPhone has been great in a lot of ways. I feel like I know my friends here a lot better than I would at this point if I was able to be constantly on social media or even texting friends back home. Because, shocker, we actually have to talk to each other. And it’s actually quite exciting to not feel tied down to a constant stream of emails or people wanting to get in touch with you. However, while I've enjoyed this newfound sense of liberation, I'm definitely excited to get my data plan back for the ease of staying informed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)