I wonder how the young Mary Shelley would have reacted to the knowledge that her novel Frankenstein would still be attracting interest two centuries after its first appearance. Would she have been amused or bemused to see a report like this?

You will remember the social media frenzy after The Sun accused students sympathising with Frankenstein’s Creature as ‘snowflakes’. The paper was rightly ridiculed for its anti-intellectual stance and apparent misunderstanding of Mary Shelley’s intentions. The story refused to be a 24-hour flash in the pan, however, as the paper tried to mount an indefensible rearguard action.

First the paper’s Head of PR (and occasional leader writer) pretended they were only following the lead of The Times, which had run with the story the day before:

The statement ran

Of course this spiel is completely disingenuous, refusing to acknowledge that the paper’s brief item had painted millennials as wimps for sympathising with what Andy Silvester persists in calling (and therefore prejudging) ‘the Monster’. The Times had merely reported factually that students were prepared to consider and understand the feelings of a being being treated abysmally badly.

Silvester’s tweet however showed none of the partial nuance that the statement had expounded, and still proclaimed the paper’s victimhood. And had the nerve to blame the same social media on which it had tweeted its inflammatory story. (That tweet, curiously, had been deleted, perhaps because it had showed The Sun as hoist by its own petard.)

You’ll note, of course, that he’s reverted to conflating Frankenstein with his creation. Maybe this is for the benefit of the paper’s regular readers, who mayn’t be expected to remember the difference. Or perhaps he’s revealing where his instincts really are: misrepresenting facts.

Andy Silvester then tried humour:

Now this is typical fake news (in the truest sense of the term). The ‘monster’ hadn’t been offended, of course, or any of his ilk. But what about those students who’d been insulted for demonstrating sympathy? They’ve been given the heave-ho and still branded snowflakes.

Secondly, this page 2 space is usually given over to proper mealy-mouthed Apologies — you know the kind: loud front page headlines screaming falsehoods being countered by a quiet ‘clarification’ in small type at the bottom of an inside page.

Eagle-eyed tweeters were soon (and quite rightly) snapping at the Silvester’s heels:

To paraphrase a certain somebody, the whole episode is of course Another day in The Sun‘s crazy world of fake news dot com

There’s a really serious aspect to this bit of verbal argey-bargey I believe, and it’s this wider issue of bullying and abuse, insidious or otherwise. And it’s not just a question of the abuser saying sorry after a fashion, as here.

There are stages in the process of Reconciliation which have to be gone through assiduously. First, the abuser has to show Recognition that they’ve caused hurt, and for that they have to have a degree of genuine empathy, something that The Sun by its own admission thinks is an admission of snowflakery.

Secondly there has to be real Regret for the abusive behaviour, expressed in words, body language or other. The paper’s jokey ‘apology’ isn’t this at all.

Thirdly there has to be some form of Recompense, not necessarily monetary (though that may come into it) and it may need to be ongoing (a bunch of flowers won’t cut the mustard). Because recompense has to show both effort and commitment and maybe even mental pain on the part of the abuser.

Even with all these concomitant provisos in place the abused person doesn’t have to be reconciled to their abuser. In the case of The Sun, which hasn’t even paid proper lip service to these stages, no one need ever feel they should be reconciled to their perpetual harassment.

The sooner this paper is shut down the better, by advertisers refusing to feature in it and readers refusing to buy it.

And it’s not the only such perpetrator:

Chart from Another Angry Voice


14 thoughts on “Monstrous

  1. inkbiotic

    Thanks for an interesting follow up, frustrating to see the Sun twist and turn to avoid the blame though.

    1. But that’s their style, isn’t it, lob in a faux-outrage grenade, watch the liberals squeal and consolidate their fan base of indignant readers. Pointless responding, I know, but one needs to be constantly vigilant against this terrorist organisation, or whatever they call themselves.

      1. inkbiotic

        I don’t think it is pointless to respond – although it won’t change how they are, it helps make people aware of it. Keep up the good fight 🙂

  2. elmediat

    There really needs to be a strongly enforced law with real consequences to force actual news outlets to maintain proper balanced reporting. This would mean that infotainment outlets could not masquerade as journalism, but would be forced to properly identify themselves & their product.
    Here in Canada there was an attempt to launch a Sun News TV – lively, “unapologetically patriotic”, and “less politically correct”. It failed. There still an issue with the print version’s “irreverent” and “provocative” approach.

    1. During one of our brief visits together to the States we were really shocked by a smooth segue from news to an ad break, presented by the news anchor (what I subsequently gathered was an infomercial). How one can have any faith in unbiased objective reporting under these conditions is beyond anyone brought up under terrestrial TV in the UK. I’m really glad that the Sky enterprise failed in Canada, Joseph — would that all media that Murdoch touched crumbled to dust.

  3. Enjoyed your summary of this daft event! But it’s serious too, how papers, deliberately or carelessly, misrepresent things. And tell people how to think. As a former (?) adult tutor, I really noticed how easily people accept the latter. So, ‘Outrage at new bin collection’ (actual story – reporter found a local resident who didn’t like the council’s idea of moving to less frequent bin collections) is taken as ‘loads of people are up in arms about this.’ I don’t like the anger the papers encourage, either. Currently I do a paper round and find that almost every day a headline has the words ‘outrage’ or ‘fury’ in them. Only the tabloids, though. The broadsheets are more subtle in their bias.

    1. Maybe we ought to start our own paper, with headlines like ‘Outrage at Tabloid Exaggeration’ or ‘Fury at Misreprentation’ or ‘Anger at The Scum’s Blatant Lies’, only this time it would accurately reflect truth!

  4. MrsB_inthehills

    It’s such a worry that some people in our society actually believe this drivel. Does Donald Trump read the Sun?

    1. Be sure that he’d retweet The Sun’s posts if he was aware of it in any way. My heart sinks when I see what look like reasonably intelligent people buying any of these rabidly rightwing rags like the Mail or the Express because I know this will be their only or main source of news — or rather real fake news — other than broadcast media which can rarely explore issues in depth.

Do leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.