Guest post by Lauren Potts
Journalists: If they’re not hacking your phones, they’re telling you that living near an airport can give you cancer and yoga can kill you.
When reporters sit in court they are deemed responsible for miscarriages of justice and when they work for the nationals, they morph into Satan himself.
It’s true, didn’t you know? All of the world’s evils lie squarely at the feet of the journalists, and people aren’t shy about letting them know.
As a reporter I’ve experienced some of these beliefs firsthand: I’ve been screamed at to fuck off, I’ve been told my future children should die, and believe it or not it was even my fault once when a murderer was found guilty.
This perception of the press is not new or unusual. Joe Public has always been quick to criticise the fourth estate – regional, national, or otherwise – for the way they bring you, the reader, the latest news.
Granted, there are some outlets which produce relevant, responsible journalism far better than others, subbed by editors who live and die by McNae’s Essential Law For Journalists. There are also far trashier news sites which thrive on scaremongering and impending doom – and people read them more than they’d care to admit.
Whatever your news poison, the conduct of the press is something rarely out of the headlines recently, what with politicians still stoking the embers of Leveson with the promise of a new regulatory body to keep hacks in line.
A tweet loosely based on the matter was bought to my attention this week which asked: “What would the (national?) press have to write about if not themselves & their own behaviour,” referencing the furore which erupted when Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn wrote about the recent death of transgender teacher, Lucy Meadows.
The author of said Tweet did concede it was not the best example in support of their point, but nevertheless, it irked me. Not because someone challenged my profession, but because the actions of a handful of bad journalists are continuing to tar those of us who continue to work honestly.
My dad once rather eloquently told me that “opinions are like arseholes: everybody’s got one,” (ain’t that the truth) and what I find annoying is the public’s propensity to sharpen their pitch forks at the whiff of an opinion they do not agree with.
When Littlejohn’s piece was published, it appeared that everyone with access to a computer saddled up their high horses and rode into cyberspace, whining, “How dare he!”
But I ask you: how dare he, what, exactly?
The fact is, Littlejohn was paid to share his opinion, and that is what he did. Readers calling for his resignation are alarmingly out of touch if they think people power will overrule his right to free speech.
Do I vote Tory? No. Do I agree with what Littlejohn said? No. Do I champion the Daily Mail as a credible news source? Only when it comes to spotting cellulite on Kim Kardashian’s thighs.
But what people don’t understand is that opinion pieces written by journalists are protected by law as long as they are honestly held, based on fact and written on a matter of public interest.
In the midst of all this is a tragic story about someone’s death, yet the outrage at Littlejohn’s column, is overshadowing the bigger picture.
Lucy Meadows died after her gender transition became a national conversation. The question we should be asking is not what a columnist thought about it, but whether it was ever in the public interest to reveal she was once a man in the first place.
Lauren is a reporter by trade. Lego hair. Swears too much. Powered by decaf Earl Grey, carrot cake and roast lamb. Magpie-like attraction to anything gold. Likes tea shops and the seaside.