The news. Or lack of it.

[iainjclark]

For the last couple of nights BBC News has been covering the new licensing laws, and I'm very conflicted.

I have nothing of great import to say about the laws themselves: 24 hour opening is strange and unnecessary. The far more common 'extra few hours' aren't going to destroy civilisation as we know it. It'll probably mean slightly more of the same: the people whose sole motivation is to drink continuously while screaming the odd monosyllable into their friend's ear will continue to do so, only for longer. They may get more smashed and do more damage to their bodies, which is sad but ultimately their own decision. More importantly there may be a bit more violence, or there may be the same rate of violence going on for longer, or the pressure point of chucking out time may be alleviated, reducing conflict overall. Who knows? Not me. And certainly not the Government or most of the commentators.

However, since Thursday night reporters have been staking out every major drinking spot in the UK, positively desperate for trouble to break out. When trouble didn't break out on Thursday, they blamed the cold weather and turned their attention to the weekend. Their reports are full of images of the police arresting people - perfectly fine in a general article about drinking problems, but all-but-irrelevant in an article about the problems of extended drinking hours, since these arrests were all before the normal chucking-out time. They have no bearing on the story and only serve, vaguely, to reinforce the "sexy" reason for the journalist being there, which is that extended drinking hours are bad. Maybe.

The news commentators also seem fixated on a couple of ideas that baffle me. One is that normal chucking out time is 11 p.m., when in fact many revelers in my experience simply move on to nightclubs which don't spill out onto the streets until 2 a.m. or thereabouts. The other is that underage access to alcohol is somehow the same story as pubs being open at 3 a.m. It's woolly sensationalist reporting, presented without context, and the pesky lack of evidence is just a minor impediment.

This wasn't limited to the drinking story yesterday. The headline "Rape case collapses as woman admits that she can't remember whether she consented to sex" implies that the stupid woman was wasting police time (especially that word "admits", beloved of journalists as a means of introducing drama while appearing to be impartial.) However the actual substance of the story implies that there are deeply ingrained sexist attitudes about rape in the legal system. The context seems a long way from the headline - a security guard is supposed to escort a paralytic woman home, but instead (at the very least) has sex with a semi-conscious woman and leaves her lying in a corridor. It's deeply ironic therefore that the headline trades off the same sexist attitudes that the story seeks to highlight.

Or how about "a million" calls to Jobcentres going unanswered. Sounds terrible, but... over what period? Out of how many calls? How does that compare to other similar call centres? Without context, what does this tell me except that "a million" is a nice round number?

I know it's a tough job to appear impartial while conveying news in an interesting fashion, but if they must look for the most dramatic angle on their story, they need to be very careful that they're not editorialising instead of reporting.

For the purpose of full disclosure it should be noted that your correspondent is on his third bottle of Leffe...

Comments

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

I like this post; it covers an awful lot of what I've been thinking about recently, but wasn't really ready to articulate.

Sometimes (and more frequently in recent times), it seems that the news coverage is more interesting than the news itself - surely the most obvious indicator of shoddy journalism? Rolling 24 hour news is one factor - when the pressure is on to report something, anything, significant and new every few minutes, then both editorial control and reporting standards are going to suffer.
Witness the George Best coverage - now, I've been as interested as the next person in the story (morbid as that may sound) - but I haven't needed the BBC to find a new way to say "George Best, not dead yet" every hour. In fact, once the initial reporting of "George Best, critically ill" were done, I didn't need anything until the final announcement. You can see from my journal how I felt; and yet I find myself thinking "Mo Mowlam didn't get this kind of minute-by-minute reporting of her final days". The reporting has struck me as intrusive and ghoulish.

Interesting that you mention the ingrained sexist attitudes highlighted in the rape case - most of the alcohol-fuelled violence in this country is committed by men, and yet most of the "24 hour licensing laws enacted - civilisation to fall" stories have been accompanied by pictures of inebriated young women. How odd, don't you think? :-p

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

"George Best, not dead yet"

Yes, this is definitely a symptom of 24 Hour news. The reporters go into "Royal Wedding" mode, that setting where it's possible to ad lib for hours at a time in a slightly portentous tone of voice without conveying any actual content.

pictures of inebriated young women. How odd, don't you think? :-p

Male camera operators have a lot to answer for. :-) I jest, but in almost any shot of a crowd on TV the camera will seek out and linger on an attractive young woman. Not that I notice these things. Cough.

[tizzle-b.livejournal.com]

stories have been accompanied by pictures of inebriated young women

But that's ok because they're faking photos already!

(may need registration as you do when stories drop off the mainpage for the media.guardian site- if so, gimme a shout and I'll c&p most of it)

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

Bad photojournalists.

(It did need registration, but in the end I decided to sign up, even if they did want to know my shoe size and inside leg measurements.)

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

*shout*

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

Press photographers have been accused by Nottingham City council of faking drunken scenes as the new 24-hour licensing laws came in to force this week.

Nottingham City councillor Chris Gibson said he witnessed two photographers staging a scene last night with a young woman sitting on the kerbside with her head between her legs.

The photographers had stopped two young women who were walking past and asked them to play drunk for the cameras, according to Cllr Gibson, despite there being no 24-hour drinking venues in the city.

This incident happened at 9.50pm, he added, some time before drunken marauders might be expected to roam the streets. The identity of the snappers is unknown.

A number of UK and overseas newspapers and broadcasters have dispatched teams to Nottingham in the hope of capturing images of disorder, said the leader of Nottingham City Council, Cllr Jon Collins, who condemned the photographers' behaviour as "underhand".

"I condemn utterly this kind of behaviour. Like any other big city and party town, Nottingham is not without problems related to alcohol-fuelled disorder but it's clear to me that anybody looking at coverage of Nottingham in the press or on TV this weekend should question whether on this occasion the camera has lied," Cllr Collins said.

The photographers' bid to capture a picture of Nottingham revelry may have breached the Press Complaints Commission's code of practice, which states that "the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures".

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Thanks. And fucking bastard jounralists... (not all of them, just the ones who think that fabrication is part of their job description).

[fba.livejournal.com]

Am deeply conflicted about the rape case. It is entirely possible she consented while pissed then regretted it and cried rape. It is also true that the security guard acted inapproriately (regardless of if consent was given) and should be sacked.

The trouble with rape cases is that unless there is evidence of violence it is very much a case of one person's word against another...

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

It tough to know without all the facts, but at the very least someone who is entrusted with a woman's safety, a woman clearly in no state to make rational decisions, and then who has sex with her in a corridor... repugnant. And if she was drunk enough to be left unconscious in a hallway after the event, she was too drunk to consent to anything.

[ajp.livejournal.com]

This is a far more complex situation than sensationalist headlines are interested in conveying. Any man who takes advantage of a drunken woman deserves to be penalised; because it is spectacularly un-gentlemanly behaviour. It's universally wrong. No excuses. But is he a rapist? With all that this (rightly) emotive word conveys?

For example, what if the woman (in her drunken state) had explicitly (or implicitly – by not explicitly opposing) consented to the act; then arguably the man in question cannot be a rapist (though as I have said, he is a scoundrel of the worst order – and depending on the specific circumstances almost certainly deserves some sort of judicial punishment).

Another complication to the case in question, is the issue of whether (as some reports have implied) the woman in question was unconscious at the time that intercourse took place. Genericising the specific case, I think that it's clear that were this to be probatively demonstrated in a court of law; that any person who had so acted, would indeed be guilty of rape. The difference being that an unconscious person is wholly unable to actively consent, or by inaction to passively consent; since they are unable to choose to withhold their dissent.

Another problem with current legislation in this area, is that at present there is no distinction made between man who rapes to exert power, as opposed to a man who rapes for sex. A man who attacks a stranger, with a deadly weapon, and rapes her – or a man who breaks into an old lady's flat and does the same is acting to wield power over his victim – it has little or nothing to do with sex. This kind of crime, is a truly heinous act; second only to murder or child abuse. It is also quite distinct from a situation where two people have some sort of a relationship (even if it very newly entered into) and who go home (or elsewhere) together, whereupon the one party forces themselves on to the the other – and some form of non-consential intercourse (or other penetration) takes place.

Clearly both are crimes, both are gravely wrong; and clearly both require penalty. But they are not the same. One is motivationally close to kidnap, the other to assault. Neither is minor, or trivial, or to be dismissed lightly – but they are not the same: and (in my view) a considered legal distinction between the two (such as the creation of an offence of non-consential intercourse) would increase the conviction rate: as juries may be less averse to returning guilty verdicts for this distinct offence. This offence would that described in the latter of my two examples, whilst the former, would remain rape.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

at present there is no distinction made between man who rapes to exert power, as opposed to a man who rapes for sex.

Well, to be honest, there is no difference. All rape is a crime of violence, and an abuse of power. Even if the man rapes the woman *just* becuase he wants sex, the crime is that of refusing to acknowledge her right to say no. By ignoring her refual, he is exerting his power. Stranger rape, date rape, whatever - it's all about exercising the belief that the victim has no right of refusal, and that the attacker has the right to have sex whenever he chooses.
A man who rapes his partner is also guilty f (one presumes) a betrayal of trust; but he is no less guilty of a crime of violence, even if he commits no other "violence" than non-consensual pentration.

All rape is violence; all rape is enabled by the presumption of "right" - motivation isn't relevant.

[ajp.livejournal.com]

"Even if the man rapes the woman *just* becuase he wants sex, the crime is that of refusing to acknowledge her right to say no."

Agreed...

"All rape is violence; all rape is enabled by the presumption of "right" - motivation isn't relevant."

Well I certainly don't want to suggest any non-consential sexual act is ever okay. It's not, and nor will it ever be, permissible for a man to force himself on a woman in any way, for any act (or indeed for anyone to so do, to any other person). And I don't want to suggest that date rape (or whatever you would like to call it) is anything other than a crime, and an emotionally (if not physically) traumatic (and scaring) assault.

However, I maintain that there is a huge difference between this sort of act (wrong though it is), and leaping out of the bushes with a knife and raping an old lady. Both are very wrong and serious; but one is worse than the other.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

The trouble with rape cases is that unless there is evidence of violence it is very much a case of one person's word against another...

Indeed. But there are, as this case tangetially touches upon, other factors involved. The recent report (sorry, don't have a link to hand) noted that society makes value judgements about the alleged victim, and the chance of a conviction seems to rest as much on those judgements as on any other factor. I find it difficult to believe that the victim of a mugging would be aasked to jusify lending money to a friend, or giving money to a beggar or to a charity, or wearing expensive clothes; and yet a rape victim is routinely expected to justify any sexual conatact she (or even more rarely in court, he) has ever had, and their demeanour/attire/attitude.

[ajp.livejournal.com]

Arguably that's an unfair comparison. Perhaps a better example would be the case of a family who chose to let a vagrant sleep overnight in their garage in the winter. Come the summer, the family decided that they did not want to vagrant sleeping in their garage any more – and clearly told the vagrant that he was no-longer welcome. One rainy night the vagrant decides he wants to sleep in the garage; and forces the door, to in to sleep inside.

The vagrant is clearly still guilty of breaking and entering; but the previous consent and it's subsequent withdrawal is some (slight) mitigation to his actions. Perhaps he'll still go to prison, but for two months, rather than three.

Similarly in a case of alleged rape between two people who had previously been regularly sexually active with each other; their sexual history with each other is slight mitigation. Whilst it is clear that no-matter what has passed between them either party can choose not to consent at any occasion. It's still rape, it's still quite wrong, it does not excuse the crime; a crime which is now also a gross abuse of trust.

History with other sexual partners is completely irrelevant however; and certainly shouldn't be considered.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

No, I don't think it is an unfair comparison. Legally, a woman's sexual history isn't relevant and is there inadmissable in court. In practice, the victim is fair game for whatever implications the defence counsel chooses to make.
Stranger rape and mugging, in that context, are analogous, because the rape victim will be judged on whether she "encouraged" the attack, but the mugging victim won't be.
Your comparison might only be analogous with partner rape - and don't forget that the law only changed in 1991 to make rape within marriage a crime. Women are often judged to have given an implict and ongoing consent to sexual partners, for however long he deems fit :-(

[ajp.livejournal.com]

"Legally, a woman's sexual history isn't relevant and is there inadmissable in court. In practice, the victim is fair game for whatever implications the defence counsel chooses to make."

Well clearly that's a slightly different case to the one I was making. General patterns of sexual behaviour are wholly irrelevant and and surprised that what you describe is allowed to occur.

Stranger rape and mugging, in that context, are analogous, because the rape victim will be judged on whether she "encouraged" the attack, but the mugging victim won't be.

Well that I certainly can't argue with (although I would suggest that motivationally it's closer to to some forms of kidnapping than to mugging - but that's another question). Anyone who suggests that a woman encouraged a stranger rape is clearly an idiot who does not understand any of the issues (not that I in any way claim any form of expertise in criminology or abusive psychology).

"Your comparison might only be analogous with partner rape"

Indeed, and that is all I was asserting.

"don't forget that the law only changed in 1991 to make rape within marriage a crime"

Indeed & long overdue it was too.

"Women are often judged to have given an implict and ongoing consent to sexual partners, for however long he deems fit"

I certainly don't disagree with that.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

Because a rather crap barrister chucked in the towel on the grounds that the victim couldn't remember if she had given consent or not, and therefore he was going to assume that she had, it has become overlooked that this case came to trial because the victim alleged that she was unconscious when the sex act commenced, which under English law creates a presumption of no consent.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

24 hour opening is strange and unnecessary.

But handy for 24 hours supermarkets when you want to buy a couple of cans at 3 or 5.

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

Oh indeed. For those times of desperate 4 a.m. beer need. :-)

Seriously, though, I've actually no idea how the new law impacts on off-licences, which hasn't even been mentioned on the news.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Well, not every night! Haven't you ever run out of booze at a party though? It's a bloody nightmare.

The new licensing covers everything: pubs, bars, restaurants, fast food places, offies, supermarkets.

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

Well then, I look forward to my early morning McBeer with enthusiasm. :-)

[mattia.livejournal.com]

Indeed.

Frankly, I don't get all the fuss. Plenty of countries have booze available in one venue or other 24/7, and they don't have outrageous amounts of problems.

Then again, might be hard for some people to break the habit of getting as smashed up as humanly possible before the pints stop flowing at 23:00. We'll just have to wait and see, I s'pose.

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

I don't really think we'll see a massive explosion of drunk violence on the streets. I do suspect that the first instance of embarrassing drunkenness and/or violence will be blown out of all proportion by the media (who seem to expect conclusive results on the first night), and it may take a while for the true impact of the new legislation to become clear.

I think that the UK has an odd drinking culture. I personally enjoy beer (and the drinking of it) a great deal, but not just drinking for its own sake. I like to be able to talk to friends while drinking, not stand in a noisy club with an unbridgeable abyss of sound between me and the next person. There seems to be a large portion of the UK whose idea of a good time is to simply "let go", and drink, drink, drink until all their cares and inhibitions are reduced to abstract concepts. I'm not entirely sure that the threat of closing time has anything to do with this state of mind, or that the new laws will effect much change.

[sieuesie.livejournal.com]

Late night food takeaways, who serve hot food after 11pm are being licensed for the first time. This is because the legislation acknowledges that they also have an impact on the late night environment.

As ninebelow says the new laws affect everyone who serves alcohol (on or off), provide regulated entertainment and therefore may cause noise disturbance (village halls etc) and hot food after 11pm.

[icundell.livejournal.com]

In a nutshell you have everything that has made me disillusioned with modern journalism. Add the shocking disgrace of Emily Brockes's essentially falsified interview with Noam Chomsky (of whom I am no big fan). Two dynamics combined, one of them aggravated by the Nicky Campbell's of this word, who are just presenters trying to be journalists (the spectacle of Campbell eating out of Blunkett's hand is what drove me back to the Today programme). But enough run-ons. The two pressures:

Too many journalists have forgotten that it is their job to report the news, not be the news. That is not to say there should be no analysis, but shots of hacks lined up waiting for George Best to die (and who will be lined up waiting for West Ham fans to break the silence on Sunday) is a symptom of the malaise: hacks wanting to *set* the agenda, not respond to it.

Second and related, but distinct: journalists aren't really looking for the truth, they are looking for the story - and the story is at best a slice through the truth. I mean, who cares about the Pakis and their earthquake when there's no British tourists being washed off the beaches?

You'd never guess what I do for a living would you?

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

every major drinking spot in the UK

By 'UK' do you mean 'England'? Sinc nothing has changed in Scotland, where such laws have been in place for, ooh, a very long time. Civilization not yet destroyed.

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

I'm so used to not being England-centric I didn't even think!

[sieuesie.livejournal.com]

/me raises her hand.

This is the field in which I work. I am one of the hapless council employees who has been tasked to administrate the new Licensing Act.

The point of the new Licensing laws was not to enable 24 hours opening. It was to modernise a system of strict permitted hours, which culminated in everyone leaving licensed premises at the same time. This i turn leads to more enebriated people on the streets at the same time, and more people crowding into hot food takeaways. There is also a problem with dispersment. Taxis are harder to find when everyone leaves town at the same time. This could lead to people walking home, and so put themselves at risk.

The point of getting rid of permitted hours was to stagger closing times. This means that there is less antisocial behaviour because there will be smaller groups of young men and women gathered in one place.

These laws also give the Police greater powers, with on-the-spot fines for bar staff and their management found serving very drunk people. This is a sea change for the Police as they have not generally crossed the threshold of licensed premises before - their job in the past has been to police the streets.

These laws also give greater powers to local residents and "responsible authorities" such as the Police, Fire Service, Trading Standards etc. to call for a review of a premises' licence. In the past the only time the licence could be reviewed was at renewal which occurred every three years. We had to rely on other legislation such as the Noise Act or the legislation surrounding statutory nuisance. For the first time, instead of prosecuting someone for individual breaches, people are able to request a review of the way a premises has been run. This request must be based on one of the four licensing objectives (crime and disorder, public nuisance, public safety or protecting children from harm) but it is still powerful. Residents who are regularly affected by a pub in their vicinity (say through loud music) can apply for a review. The upshot of this may be more conditions on that premises' licence which then gives an immediate relief to the residents. We have to review a licence within 60 days. A prosecution for noise may take 6 to 9 months and seems a little heavy handed when a bass limiter on the sound system may be all that is required..

In our Borough we have over 670 licensed premises. 5 have applied for 24 hour opening. 3 are supermarkets, 1 is the conference centre and only 1 is a pub. This is a pub which is in a rural location and serves a local community. The licensee is making legal the practices he has working to for the last ten years. He doesn't want to open for 24 hours, but he would like the opportunity to close when it is quiet ad open longer when it is busy, He wants to be able to stay open if his customers want to carry on drinking. In a village location where the pub is a step away from any local residents this seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The whole reporting of the new licensing reforms has incensed me. The press have spectacularly missed the point - to sell more papers. This legislation has been written and is continually being developed to reduce crime and disorder in our streets, not encourage it. It is trying to effect a change in attitude. Why should the sensible majority of businesses and customers be penalised by a few badly run pubs and rowdy customers?

The archaic permitted hours of 11pm closing were put into place to stop munitions workers from arriving at work drunk during the Second World War. They have been out of date since 1945. Isn't it better to improve the way we can deal with the badly run premises, and to put systems in place to avoid large groups of people gathering?

Incidentally, flexible opening hours do not mean premises can open whenever and for as long as they like. They are still restricted to set opening hours, the ones they applied for when they converted their old style liquor licence. However it may mean that your local doesn't close at 11pm. My guess is that it closes at midnight.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

*loff*

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

I endorse this post.

[sieuesie.livejournal.com]

FUMOP I may have sounded a little ranty. Sorry about that. Crap reporting has always wound me up. Crap reporting over a subject I have been immersed in for 18 months and worked a 55 hour week doing for the last 9 months winds me up a LOT.

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

No, thanks very much for your post - it wasn't ranty at all! It's what the news should be reporting, but aren't because the possibility of the laws causing problems is a much sexier story than the possibility of the laws reducing problems. It's hard to get exciting footage of people not causing mayhem on the streets.

The tenor of reporting throughout has been "Government wants to let drunken yobs drink even more, while the sensible majority of concerned citizens can only wait for the inevitable disaster..." There's also a significant level of hyprocrisy in attitudes to drinking - everyone wants to be able to drink, but thinks that we should be worried about other people drinking.

Mind you, to be fair the BBC website has reported that civilisation failed to come to an end last night (hardly a whiff of this story on the TV at the moment).

[icundell.livejournal.com]

*applause*

[ajp.livejournal.com]

" It's woolly sensationalist reporting, presented without context, and the pesky lack of evidence is just a minor impediment."

Why does this surprise you? Seriously, with the still honourable exception of Radio 4; news (be it print or broadcast) is dominated by exactly this.

News has become: about telling a story, emphasising the drama, focussing on the personalities & the process. Never mind the details, or the causality, or the implications, or the consequences – because those aspects are very boring; and we think our audience is too stupid to understand them anyway...

:-(

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

I know I shouldn't be surprised. I think, out of everything, it's the lack of context that most annoys me. Once the story's "hook" has been decided upon, tunnel-vision seems to take over and any extraneous information is sidelined or left out entirely.

Fine, pick a journalistic angle on the story, even emphasise the worries people have, if you have to. I don't mind that IF they also give us the background: What does it mean in context? What proportion of people are worried? What are the positive aspects? How big is the risk really, in absolute terms?

[ajp.livejournal.com]

Indeed, and I agree entierly.

The trouble is that even when they try to do it properly, they screw it up. There was an example of this on the radio the other day. Someone had written in complaining about the number of surveys that BBC News was reporting as fact. They ran a fairly balanced item about how they were often illustrative of a wider trend; but also that small sample sizes, and self-selecting respondents made these less than scientific. To illustrate this they said: "What if we told you that 75% of our production staff had soup for dinner today? Is that significant? Well, what if we told you that our production staff amounted to just six people?"

Six people? And four-and-a-half of them had soup? :-(