The case of the missing minister
Many of us know the story of Lee Harvey Oswald, the man fingered by the US government as the guy who assassinated John F. Kennedy, and the theory that a photo of him holding Marxist newspapers and a rifle were faked. More recently, another suspected left-winger, James Purnell, has been inserted into an image to make people think he is interested in the NHS. It seems pretty well established that the photo is a fake - even a cursory close-up shows the tell-tale Photoshop jagged edge from an inexperienced cut-and-paste. The exposure is all wrong too, and the composition is good without him and bad with him, but the latter could just be bad photographer (I’m really laying into them today, aren’t I?). The question now seems to be: did he arrange for his post-event inclusion into the photo, or was it just a public-sector publicity section who thought it would do no harm? Whilst it could easily have been the second, it seems that Mr. Purnell has been doing a bit of Orwell. And well he might, since those of a Socialist persuasion have been doctoring history since Socialism was itself invented; something that comes out of the ‘we know best’ ideology that marks out much left-wing thinking (by the way, I am sometimes a left-winger myself).
The sad thing about this event is that it was expected that Purnell would be getting up to this sort of thing. Spin is de rigeur nowadays, and the media are fond of being outraged about it. But hang on a second: how do we know that spin is being perpetrated in the first place? After all, we only learn about these events from the media in the first place. Everything we learn that is not from our own senses must come from someone else, and therefore is subject to their agenda rather than our own: an obvious statement, maybe, but one that bears repeating. When judging such material, therefore, we must use some of our critical faculties. What is the purpose of the story? Why does it matter to the presenter (the journalist or newspaper in this instance) and to the reader (you or I)?
Incentives are a good way to look at this. Generally, there is an incentive for each of the players in this game. Firstly, the NHS want to associate themselves with a rising ministerial star (perhaps something like money or influence will rub off - good luck with that…), so they want to have the photo doctored but not seen to be so. James Purnell clearly wants to be seen as a ‘man of the people’ supporting health care, so he’s in with the NHS - no surprise there if he knew about the doctoring beforehand. But what about the whistleblowing journo? He’s probably just in it for the money, but the guy paying for it (ultimately the newspaper owner) is looking for an angle with which to sell newspapers, but also to bias public opinion to his own personal benefit. It’s well-known that newspapers are generally right-wing since right-wing policies benefit newspaper owners (who therefore influence newspaper content).
But what about you, dear (newspaper) reader? Why did you want to read about it? Perhaps because of the vicarious pleasure gained from seeing someone ‘caught out’. That’s a powerful incentive for buying things: witness those womens’ magazine sections showing picture after picture of celebrities not looking their best (sweat patches, bad hair days, no make-up). People like reading that sort of thing because they feel they have scored points off people they thing are doing better than them in the game. But are they? Think about this game, the one about Purnell and the picture. Who was the winner of that game?
The Purnell story made me think about how hard it is to ascertain any truth about anything you read; so much editing occurs in the media anyway, that it is to be expected that manipulation is to take place. ‘There is no such thing as unbiased history’, as I was told by my history teacher (or did he really say that to me? I might be just saying that). An example of this is rather trivial maybe, but also maybe illustrates some important things, one of which is that you can only really be sure if you are there yourself.
Last Christmas, Daresbury Church was the one featured on the ITV Xmas service, as it had been the previous year. ITV has a commitment to religious programming, it needs a church, Daresbury is well-known because of Lewis Carroll and Alice in Wonderland, is fairly photogenic (with good lighting) and has a similarly photogenic vicar. So far so good. Also, not so surprisingly, with the prospect of being on the telly, quite a few rarely (if ever) seen locals turn up to be the bums on seats in the front rows, plus there are a few actors and singers from ITV to give it a bit of glamour. Katherine Jenkins and Alfie Boe for example turned up and did a turn, and then jetted of just as quickly - fair enough, they’re just in it for the money. Wendi Peters was great, by the way: she really went up in my estimation.
But what were all the politicians doing there? I sat through the service (a bum on a seat!), and then saw it a few days later (’look Mum, there I am!’). And there are the politicos again: David Blunkett, Ann Widdicombe, and Hazel Blears? Hang on a second: Hazel Blears? She wasn’t there at the service, I am sure of that, ‘cos I was there myself (see above). But yet there she is, edited into the footage as if she had been there. It clicked straight away, of course: she had been there earlier in the day, and had done some readings. Presumably, like Purnell, she had another ‘important’ appointment to be at. Now I dislike David Blunkett intensely (a more obvious ‘man on the make’ I can’t think of right now), and Ann Widdicombe is not my cup of tea (although she obviously has convictions) - but at least they turned up. Even the rather starry Jenkins was actually there in the room with us. And the Duchess of Kent sat through all the takes you need to get sufficient footage for what is apparently a continuous service on the telly. If Royalty can turn up and stick it out, why can’t Ms. Blears? A very Stalinist attitude, if you ask me…
Local coverage of this televisual feast was bizarre, and missed the good story above. Instead, our local rag complained about how the event was pre-recorded and edited before transmission. Really? You don’t say! You mean, East Enders isn’t broadcast live from the set? Local journos were ‘outraged’ - a common emotion in newspapers these days, along with ‘fury’ - implying that the reader ought to be outraged too. A little secret - the service was recorded in November… as was the Easter service, recorded a day later and done without all the bums on seats and politicos, probably because it wasn’t on prime time. It’s amazing what you can do just by changing the lighting and taking out the Xmas tree in the corner of the church.
Does all this matter? Does it matter that James Purnell wasn’t really in the photograph? Some might say that it’s all just performance, just presenting a picture designed to satisfy the viewer in some way. But people have a desire for ‘reality’ rather than scripting, because they don’t wish to be manipulated, or at least to think they are not being manipulated. Hence we have the desire for soap operas rather than drama, because it appears ‘more real’, and then to have ‘reality TV’ shows like Big Brother, because they appear unscripted. Wait a minute: you thought they were spontaneous? The recent TV competition voting scandal should teach you otherwise. The only way round this is not to believe anything that’s presented to you as ‘fact’. It probably isn’t.
Postscript: photo manipulation is getting more sophisticated that just cut-and-paste. Seam carving is entering the mainstream. Now you won’t be able to believe any image you see in the paper.
Comments
Leave a Reply