Abroad, adjusting to the “bold and brazen” British media
It started out innocently enough.
I was on the Jubilee line with a few friends on our way for a night out to the theater. We were sitting quietly when my friend picked up a copy of the Daily Star, one of Britain’s many tabloids, and started flipping absent-mindedly through the pages. A moment later, I heard her yelp:
“Oh my God! Christina, you need to see this.”
“What?” I asked.
“Just look,” she said. She handed me the copy with the page marked off. I opened it nonchalantly, expecting to see some lurid headline about a drugged-out pop star or anorexic supermodel. Instead, my eyes fell upon a busty blonde. Or, shall I say, a busty, topless blonde.
Incidents like those are a good descriptor of British media and sum up their character: the media here is brash, bold and brazen. It’s unafraid and unapologetic. And they always, always leave you wondering, sometimes out loud: How can they legally print this? What about the children?!
The majority of newspapers here are of the infamous tabloids of the ink-rubs-off-on-your-fingers, screaming-in-your-face-headlines variety. They are so ubiquitous that even to this journalism student, they all start to blend together after a while. The Daily Express could be the Daily Star which could be the Daily Mail (although I haven’t seen a pair of DD’s in the Daily Mail the few times I’ve read it).
The only broadsheet I’ve come across so far is the Guardian and I try to stick to that whenever possible. It’s partly because it’s the closest thing I’ve found to The New York Times and partly because I love that it devotes an entire section to media coverage on Mondays.
Most of the time, I don’t feel like paying 40 pence for The Guardian, so I pick up a free copy of thelondonpaper, the Metro or London Lite — all of which are handed out (or, better yet, shoved in your face) outside nearly every Tube station. They all remind me of a lengthier, more gossipy and fun amNY, the paper that I typically get outside Penn Station. They are colorful, funny and know what the 18-24 demographic wants to read. My only complaint is that, not surprisingly, they are light and not so in-depth on news that is deemed “important” by their more traditional, Fourth Estate counterparts. I prefer thelondonpaper for no particular reason and read it on the Tube with the hopes of passing myself off as a real, commuting Londoner.
This all took a little getting used to, despite the fact I’ve worked full-time for one of the brashest, most unapologetic American tabloids out there and have taken part in that culture and genuinely loved just about every minute of it. Even the boldness of The New York Post that I love so much pales in comparison to even the tamest of the tabs here. To be honest, I’m glad.
As for television, simply put, if you want to own one you must fork over 135.50 pounds annually (more than $270 for those of you who aren’t checking the ever-worsening exchange rate). This is just to get your basic, public-service broadcasting channels like the BBC (whose source of revenue is a licensing fee). From my understanding, this is done so that BBC can make their money without running loads of advertisements.
Considering American access to the network channels at home, this concept seems like a rip-off. More significantly, though, is that it is limiting an entire segment of the population — namely, the poor — from free and unrestricted access to the press. The truly destitute aren’t going to spend that money on television when they are struggling to put food on the kitchen table for their children, but that’s just the bleeding-heart liberal in me.
I have, admittedly, less knowledge about British television, but there is a reason. I rarely watch the “telly” here. I don’t have one in my room. Why, do you ask? Well, it didn’t fit in my suitcase, silly. I didn’t want to buy one that I would use for only three months. Of course, there’s the nudity factor I’d like to avoid — topless women and men’s tushes abound on some Channel 4 dating show I stumbled upon last week. Coming from the States where the FCC would be all over this, I’m still trying to figure out what this is all about.
Medill junior Christina Amoroso is currently studying abroad in London. Read about her day-to-day experiences in her New York Post blog.
| Print
Read too many tabloids and need to study? Hit the caffeine. Or you can return home.
Hi – came across your blog by accident. There are a couple of things you don’t really understand about the BBC – yes, 135.50 UKP is a lot, but we get a wonderful channel with no advertisements, no breaks in dramas or films, and I am sure that if you did a survey, you’d find that the poor are not being limited from free and unrestricted access to the press, as it is just a tax that people are on the whole happy to pay for quality programming: you cannot have a TV without one, whether you choose to watch the BBC or not (even if you don’t tune your TV into the BBC, you still pay it). So anyone who wants to watch TV has to pay it. It’s one of the conditions of “having a TV”. It just gets assimilated. This isn’t a new tax. Nor is this limited to Britain – Scandinavia has a similar system. Think of it more as a “receiver licence”, but the money happens to fund the BBC. Everyone who has a TV has paid it since 1946 (and in the old days, before TV, paid a radio tax since 1922). When polled whether people would prefer not to pay the tax but have advertisements breaking up movies and other programmes, you’d be surprised at the results.
A TV licence is simply speaking part of having a TV.
So no, the “poor” are not denied free access to the BBC as a result, if they have a TV they will have to pay it irrelevant of whether they watch the BBC. It’s a tax that gets assimilated with other utilities like the water rates, gas bill, electricity…
As for your comments on the printed media, well I find it amazing that you say that the Guardian is the only broadsheet you’ve come across… Whilst it’s a good read, you surely must have come across the Times, the Financial Times, the Telegraph and, for me the best, the Independent?
And I don’t really “get” why you are so worried about encountering nudity. As a journalism student, and one who considers herself liberal, surely you should be more concerned about why the US has such a hang-up about nudity rather than trying to avoid it on Channel 4 and the Star. It makes little sense to me. What is there to be ashamed about the naked body? We all have one! I can almost understand someone living in some sheltered Amish upbringing getting shocked, but please, you are supposedly young and a recent media student, why are you still hanging on to values that were kicked out by the Victorians here in the UK? We’re a lot behind other countries such as Spain, Sweden, Germany, etc when it comes to these things, but your comments like “How can they legally print this, what about the children” make me laugh and also shock me about how behind the times the US is in these matters. What about the children? Well?
You talk a lot about the Star… well the Sun has religiously had a topless girl on page 3 (and elsewhere) since Rupert Murdoch introduced it in the early 1970s. One attempt by current editor Rebekah Wade to get rid of Page 3 girls in 1988 (on the grounds of it being sexist, not on the grounds of decency) when made deputy editor was met with such public anger that she quickly withdrew her suggestion. She is now editor, and page 3 is as saucy as ever.
But my point is: if you really want to study British journalism, rather than get outraged, why not try and fathom out *why* you get outraged. You may end up learning a lot more about your own society in the end.
Tristan White
January 9, 2008 at 9:01 am
The BBC is a waste of space. Nobody actually wants to pay the licence fee just for a lousy channel that produces rubbish programmes, and doesn’t put up adverts. I love adverts. They are quite funny. And with modern digi recorders you can ignore them completely. You are right. It is a rip-off par excellence. If the English had a revolution, it would probably currently consist of two issues: fuel prices and TV licences. But some, silly people, who have been brainwashed, just think that paying a licence is necessary to get good programmes. That is nonsense.
James Smith
May 28, 2008 at 6:31 pm