2010-11-26 07:18:39
The thing about news is that it has to be unusual, otherwise it's not news,
it's just life. That's one theory at least. But it presents all sorts of
problems, says Michael Blastland in his regular column.
Imagine a land where people wear spectacles that turn danger upside down -
what's deadly appears trivial, what's unlikely chills the blood.
They lurch into national panic over a mouse dropping - recall Parliament, phone
the army! - but regard everyday killers with indifference. It's a place of
swivel-eyed disproportion.
But is this fiction, or real? Enter the strange media world of Harrabin's Law,
and decide for yourself. The media does sometimes seem to be a place where what
you hear most is often what happens least.
I've named the phenomenon after the BBC's Roger Harrabin, who puts it like
this: "When considering societal problems over the long term, news-worthiness
is often in inverse proportion to frequency. If problems become commonplace,
they are not new - so do not qualify as 'news'. This means the media often
guides politicians to focus on less serious acute problems at the expense of
more serious systemic problems."
Man, dog, biting
To find out if it was true, he counted how often stories about various risks
were covered by a sample of media outlets, and compared that with the data. The
law seemed to apply.
Start Quote
Roger Harrabin
There is often a perverse pressure on politicians through the media to act on
issues which appear more immediate but are ultimately of lesser public
significance
End Quote Roger Harrabin
I'll offer a new example that extends the idea - in a moment.
"So what?" you say. That's what news is - the unusual. As an old journalistic
saying has it:
"Dog bites man" - not news.
"Man bites dog" - that's news.
So the more rare an event, the more it stands out. The more it stands out, the
more attention we give it.
And that's when we hit trouble. Because the more attention it's given, the more
everyone reads and hears about it. The more we hear about it, the more frequent
we think it is - and the bigger we think the problem. There are the spectacles.
As Harrabin says: "In areas of public policy where government is asked to
intervene there is often a perverse pressure on politicians through the media
to act on issues which appear more immediate but are ultimately of lesser
public significance."
An example is the comparison between the reporting of road and rail deaths.
Rail deaths are far more infrequent and because of that - not in spite of it -
they gain more coverage.
Here's a topical test-case for you to judge that stretches the principle a
little. Has Harrabin's Law struck again - on strikes? Seems to me there's been
an obsession with an imminent "winter of discontent", and indeed spring, summer
and autumn of discontent, more or less continuously for the last three years.
Telegraph headline
The Telegraph looked forward to WINTER of discontent in 2008...
Telegraph headline
and again in 2009...
Telegraph headline
and again in 2010.
Times headline
The Times, by contrast, worried about a SUMMER of discontent in 2008...
Mail Online headline
as did the Daily Mail...
Telegraph headline
and of course the Telegraph.
BBC headline
The BBC reported threats of a Scottish SUMMER of discontent in 2009.
Sun headline
Ever original, the Sun suggested a SPRING of discontent in 2011.
Guardian headline
And, to complete the set, here's the Guardian with an AUTUMN of discontent.
The data, however, suggests that this is a period - comparatively speaking - of
breathless tranquility, with strike days lost about 50 times higher in 1979
than now and fewer strike days in the past 20 years put together than in 1979,
despite 4.5 million more people in the workforce today.
Work days graph
If Harrabin's Law applies, maybe the most interesting and typical thing about
workplace relations throughout this recession has been mostly ignored. That is
that they seem to have been marked by weary resignation in the workforce or,
dare we say it, co-operation during hard times on both sides. Meanwhile effort
goes instead to finding proof of that elusive strike-mayhem.
Winter of discontent Now is our winter, spring, summer (delete as appropriate)
of discontent
Well, up to now. It's conceivable that we will see more strikes as the cuts
bite. Even if the warnings of mass strikes have rung out wrongly for the past
three years, it might be true one day. Even a stopped clock eventually tells
the correct time.
Unions are far weaker today, but still a force. Pay and conditions are under
genuine pressure. And the new boss of Unite, Britain's biggest union, Len
McCluskey, has warned of a "wave of industrial action in the spring".
But true in realistic comparison with 1979? The interesting question is whether
this is a dog that hasn't yet bitten because people have changed in the UK.
That's a question not much asked.
But what about strikes at the BBC? What about British Airways? That's exactly
the reaction that bears out Harrabin's Law. We seize on a few prominent
examples and assume they equal a trend. There are often problems with data,
that's true, but I quite like to know what the trend data is, and on strikes
it's not much reported.
There have to be limits to Harrabin's Law. If strikes never happened at all, it
would be surprising if that led to an increase in media comment on winters of
discontent. But short of that, what do you think? Harrabin's Law? Or am I
exaggerating?