Friday, 22 March 2013

Blood on their hands: Lucy Meadows is dead

Lucy Meadows was found dead at home three days ago. She was a primary school teacher living and working in the north-west of England, who commenced her male-to-female transition during the 2012/13 Christmas break, intending to start the new term in January as her new self. She had full and overt support from the school and many parents.

The national tabloid press soon took up the 'story'. In particular, the Daily Mail was assiduous in informing its readers what it thought about male-bodied teachers who embark on transition in schools for younger students, pushing the view that it was a selfish act committed without proper regard to the children's sensibilities. I understand that the particular Mail article on this topic, the online version, has now been edited so that Lucy Meadows is no longer directly named. One wonders why such editing was necessary, if the article was, in the first place, a fair and reasonable piece of reporting done strictly in the public interest.

The authorities have not yet said what the cause of death was, but they are not suspicious of foul play: that hints at natural causes or suicide.

At the time of my writing this post, the online BBC News website has not mentioned her death, except to direct those interested to an external article published by the online Huffington Post. The BBC do however feature an article on the cancellation of a Pooh Sticks contest. Pooh Sticks is a game where persons drop floating sticks into a river and watch them get carried away by the current. It's simple and light-hearted. Suicide is where a person takes their own life, usually because of a reason important to them. It can be simple, but is not light-hearted.

Sigh.

The press are resurgent. I knew they would be. I knew that the evidence given to Lord Leveson would count for nothing in practice. The press will push boundaries. It's done to make money from a business sector that is contracting but very, very far from dead.

What, in essence, has changed in the last twenty years or so? What can possibly change in the future? If 'free speech' means that newspapers can destroy people's lives for the sake of a 'story', then it's not worth having 'free speech'. There is no merit in something that leads to unhappiness and possibly death. Surely it would instead be better to have a right to tell the plain unembellished truth, and not more than that. Not opinions. Nor beliefs. Nor speculation. Just the basic truth. To apply in any medium: newspapers, TV, radio, the Internet. In blogs too. Just what is absolutely true. With penalties for publishing anything else. Boring? Not entertaining? Wouldn't sell? What are the right priorities then?

I can't help thinking back to Diana, Princess of Wales. She died in 1997, hounded to the end by people looking for a story - and pictures to go with it. Some think she courted that attention, and attempted to use the press and other media to hit back at her husband. Others see her as a victim of obsessive and oppressive press interest that just grew over the years, so that the news industry became a voracious pack animal, rabid beyond cure.

Whether he was a likeable man or not, I was most impressed by the eulogy Earl Spencer gave in Westminster Abbey on 6 September 1997 to his dead sister, on the day of her funeral. Here is the part that comments on the pressure exerted on her life by the press and its satellites:

There is no doubt that she was looking for a new direction in her life at this time [her last days]. She talked endlessly of getting away from England, mainly because of the treatment that she received at the hands of the newspapers. I don't think she ever understood why her genuinely good intentions were sneered at by the media, why there appeared to be a permanent quest on their behalf to bring her down. It is baffling.

My own and only explanation is that genuine goodness is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum. It is a point to remember that of all the ironies about Diana, perhaps the greatest was this: a girl given the name of the ancient goddess of hunting was, in the end, the most hunted person of the modern age.

She would want us today to pledge ourselves to protecting her beloved boys William and Harry from a similar fate and I do this here, Diana, on your behalf. We will not allow them to suffer the anguish that used regularly to drive you to tearful despair.

Words that might apply to others.

After her death, the press did back off somewhat. You might also think that they simply shifted their focus, and looked for new targets, so that the kind of people who read tabloid newspapers for their salacious content, and kept the industry alive and well, would carry on buying. It was fortunate that new targets came forth. Targets such as Lucy Meadows. Otherwise many professional writers would have been out of a job. And shareholders would feel disappointed.

3 comments:

  1. They write what they like with impunity. It is one rule for them and another for the rest. Whilst people pay for the privilege of reading their tripe it will continue ad infinitum. Therefore we can say that the public in general are as much responsible as they. You said it yourself, as long as the story sells they will continue to ruin people's lives just to make money. Do you buy newspapers? Then stop if you do is what I say. I haven't bought one for well over 50 years. There is a bigger picture behind all of this but people cannot see it. Think about it, if people were purer in heart none of this would happen but there is no man-made legislation that will turn hearts around. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

    Shirley Anne x

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, I don't buy newspapers. And in any case I don't trust what they say. I trust premium sources of news more - such as the BBC, even though they have demonstrated that they have cultural problems that affect what they will risk covering.

    Lucy

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is, of course, highly significant that this story has broken in the middle of the debate about press regulation. I do hope that Leverson's recommendations are not watered down too much by a government that still seems to believe the press can govern themselves. They couldn't when Princess Diana was newsworthy, nor when a pregnant princess wanted to sunbathe, and they still can't today. In the absence of firm legislation, the power of the chequebook wins every time.

    ReplyDelete

This blog is public, and I expect comments from many sources and points of view. They will be welcome if sincere, well-expressed and add something worthwhile to the post. If not, they face removal.

Ideally I want to hear from bloggers, who, like myself, are knowable as real people and can be contacted. Anyone whose identity is questionable or impossible to verify may have their comments removed. Commercially-inspired comments will certainly be deleted - I do not allow free advertising.

Whoever you are, if you wish to make a private comment, rather than a public one, then do consider emailing me - see my Blogger Profile for the address.

Lucy Melford