by James Curran
4. As the Press Council confirmed, in upholding a complaint against an article in the Sun, as reported in UK Press Gazette, 16 February 1987.
5. For further details of press coverage of Jenny, and of the political response to it, see pp. 162–5 of the first edition of this book.
6. L. Levidow, ‘Witches and seducers: moral panics for our time’, in Crises of the Self: Further Essays on Psychoanalysis and Politics, B. Richards (ed.) (London: Free Association Books, 1989), pp. 181–215.
7. S. Reinhold, Local Conflict and Ideological Struggle: ‘Positive Images’ and Section 28, unpublished DPhil thesis in Social Anthropology, University of Sussex, 1994, pp. 55–6. I am extremely grateful to Sue Reinhold for allowing me to draw on her thesis, which, amongst much other highly useful material, contains interviews with many of the main Haringey players discussed in this chapter. A short account of her work on Haringey can be found in S. Wright and S. Reinhold, (2011), ‘“Studying through”: a strategy for studying political transformation. Or sex, lies and British politics’, in C. Shore, S. Wright and D. Però (eds), Policy Worlds: Anthropology and the Analysis of Contemporary Power (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2011), pp. 86–104.
8. Quoted in ibid., p. 53
9. Quoted in ibid., p. 57.
10. The report is available at www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/hmi-curricmatters/health.html.
11. This is the title of a lengthy paean to Patrick Harte, who had just formed the Belmont Parents Rights Group, whose aim was to prevent Haringey Council ‘introducing the teaching of homosexuality as an acceptable alternative to heterosexuality and the teaching of positive images of gays and lesbians throughout the curriculum in Belmont Junior and Infant Schools’. It actually reads like a Private Eye parody of Mail journalism, with Harte being described as ‘a folk hero for innocence’ with ‘a cup of tea at his elbow’ and married to ‘wee Scots lassie’ Alison. In fact, this is Wolfie Smith and the Tooting Popular Front as re-imagined by the Mail – except totally devoid of the humour of John Sullivan’s TV series Citizen Smith.
12. This was a right-wing libertarian organisation chaired by the shadowy, Lord Lucan-lookalike David Hart, who had taken a highly active role in defeating the striking miners in 1984–5, advising Thatcher and the National Coal Board and funding the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM). The Campaign produced a newsletter, British Briefing, which was edited by former MI5 officer Charles Ewell and partly funded by Rupert Murdoch. During the run-up to the 1987 election, the Campaign published a number of virulently anti-Labour advertisements in the national press (S. Milne, ‘Rightwing campaigners come out of the bunker’, Guardian, 23 June 1987, p. 6). One of these, which ran twice in the week before the election, featured the vice-chair of the PRG. Beneath her picture, the advertisement read: ‘My name is Betty Sheridan. I live in Haringey. I have two children. And I’m scared. If you vote LABOUR they’ll go on teaching my kids about GAYS & LESBIANS instead of giving them proper lessons’. The advertisements were placed by the solicitors White and McDevitt, whose address was shared with the right-wing pressure group Aims of Industry, which has also paid for anti-Labour advertisements in the national press. Earlier, in January 1987, the PRG had announced that it was going to mount a legal challenge to Haringey’s policy on sex education, and hired as their solicitor David Negus, whose legal manoeuvrings on behalf of working miners during the strike had paved the way for the creation of the UDM. An article in the Standard (24 January) quoted UDM general secretary John Liptrott as telling a PRG meeting: ‘Your fight is the same as ours was. It’s a battle over who controls the country. Arthur Scargill wanted us to be Stormtroopers for the revolution. We said no. So must you’. The next day’s Mail took up the story under the headline ‘Pit rebels fight left over “gay lessons”’, which quoted Liptrott as stating: ‘There’s a saying: corrupt the morals and you defeat the people’. However, the legal challenge never materialised. Hart played a key role in establishing contacts between the PRG and Westminster politicians, and the Campaign’s members included, inevitably, the ubiquitous Baroness Cox (see endnote 3).
13. For example, on 15 October 1986, Peter Simple wrote in the Telegraph: ‘I have a great dislike of demonstrations, picketing and other such activities. But a columnar award goes to the parents of children at Devonshire Hill primary school in Wood Green who demonstrated against Haringey borough council’s policy of “positive images” for homosexuals’. But a few days later, on 23 October, the Guardian published a letter from Arthur Phillips, the chairman of the governors of that school, in which he complained that the protestors were not parents of pupils but a ‘politically motivated flying picket, bent on disrupting primary schools in the area and making scurrilous remarks, as I myself have witnessed, about the teachers at the school’. In the Haringey Advertiser, 27 November, he was quoted as saying that ‘I personally heard parents being told that the teachers in the school were lying to them. This took place in front of the children who were with their parents’. And the chair of Haringey’s education committee, John Moore, stated that he had seen PRG pickets ‘clapping when a child has run away from the gates crying’ (City Limits, 30 October). No such sentiments ever appeared in those national papers cheerleading for the PRG. For more details of the PRG see M. Durham, Moral Crusades: Family and Morality in the Thatcher Years (New York: New York University Press, 1991), pp. 111–18; Reinhold, Local Conflict, pp. 70–8, 149–54.
14. Reinhold, Local Conflict, p. 4.
15. J. Hughes, ‘Putting the boot in for God’, City Limits, 30 October 1986.
16. House of Commons, 22 October 1986, col. 1083. This litany would be endlessly recycled and repeated in Parliament during the following months – for example, by Jill Knight in the debate on Clause 28 on 15 December 1987 (House of Commons, col. 1000), by Baroness Cox in a debate on the Local Government Bill as a whole on 11 January 1988 (House of Lords, col. 1013), and by Knight again in a debate on the Bill on 9 March 1988 (House of Commons, col. 386).
17. House of Commons, 22 October 1986, col. 1084.
18. Ibid., cols. 1084–5.
19. For an analysis of Labour reaction at the national level to these local events, see Chapter 8 ‘Slaying the Dragon’ in this book.
20. Quoted in S. Lansley, S. Goss and C. Wolmar, Councils in Conflict: The Rise and Fall of the Municipal Left (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1989), p. 173.
21. D. Cooper, Sexing the City: Lesbian and Gay Politics within the Activist State (London: Rivers Oram Press, 1994), p. 105.
22. Ibid., p. 110.
23. Ibid., p. 136
24. Reinhold, Local Conflict, p. 84.
25. Cooper, Sexing, p. 139.
26. Lansley et al., Councils, p.172.
27. Cooper, Sexing, pp. 122–3.
28. Quoted in Reinhold, Local Conflict, p.8
29. Quoted in J. Weeks, Against Nature: Essays on History, Sexuality and Identity (London: Rivers Oram Press, 1991), p. 126.
30. All quoted in Reinhold, Local Conflict, pp. 97–8.
31. House of Lords, 15 April 1986, col. 646.
32. Ibid., col. 647.
33. Ibid., col. 649
34. Ibid., cols. 649–59.
35. Ibid., cols. 650–2.
36. House of Lords, 20 May 1986, col. 225.
37. Ibid., cols. 225–6.
38. Ibid., col. 230.
39. House of Lords, 28 July 1986, cols. 552–4.
40. House of Lords, 18 December 1986, col. 310. Given Halsbury’s persistent, some would say obsessive, pursuit of matters such as these, it was surely odd that his obituary in the liberal Guardian (1 February 2000) contained no mention at all of this aspect of his life, noting instead, at the climax of a glowing encomium, that ‘Halsbury’s influence on our nation was considerable … He was greatly respected and greatly loved’. But not by everybody.
41. S. Jeffery-Poulter, Stephen, Peers, Queers and Commons: The Struggle for Gay Law Reform from 1950 to the Present (London: Routledge, 1991), p. 210.
42. Reinhold, Local Conflict, pp. 133–5.
43. House of Lords, 18 December 1986, cols. 312–13.
44. Ibid., col. 318.
45. Ibid., col. 330.
46. Ibid., col. 320.
47. Ibid., col. 25.
48. Ibid., col. 326–7.
49. Ibid., col. 328.
50. Ibid., cols. 328–9.
51. Ibid., cols. 332–3.
52. Ibid., col. 335.
53. Ibid., col. 336.
54. House of Commons, 8 May 1987, col. 997.
55. Ibid., col. 998.
56. Ibid., col. 999.
57. This was re-named the Freedom Association in 1978. It first came to prominence through its strike-breaking activities during the bitter and premonitory 1976–8 Grunwick dispute in Brent, and later campaigned in support of the right of England cricketers to tour in apartheid-era South Africa, and against the BBC licence fee, the UK’s membership of the EU, and the Royal Mail’s erstwhile monopoly. Inevitably, Caroline Cox is a member of its Council. For a critical account of the Campaign’s early years see J. Jennings, Enemy Within: The Freedom Association, the Conservative Party and the Far-Right (London: Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, 1980), and for a general overview http://powerbase.info/index.php/Freedom_Association.
58. The publication of this book was the occasion for yet another press furore. On 5 October 1986, the News of the World ran a story headed ‘Storm over gay video in schools’, which related to the video Framed Youth: Revenge of the Teenage Perverts. This, according to Tingle, ‘encourages children to become gays’, was being shown in schools, ‘promoted’ by the ILEA, and furnished proof that ‘schools are now the prime target for gay propagandists’. Not reported was the fact that in 1984 it had won the prestigious Grierson Award. Interestingly, one of those featured in this allegedly corrupting film was Richard Coles, now an ordained priest in the Church of England and something of a ‘national treasure’. Tingle’s book was also featured in The Times, 6 October, (‘Schools “targets for gay lib propaganda”’), the Mail, 6 October, (‘Gays “use sex lessons to promote their own lifestyle”’) and the Telegraph, 7 October, (‘“Gay is natural” fight in schools’). Tingle’s entry on the Forum of Christian Leaders boasts that ‘her booklet, Gay Lessons: How Public Funds are Used to Promote Homosexuality Among Children and Young People led directly to the Section 28 legislation in Britain’ (http://foclonline.org/user/253/webinars).
59. Reinhold, Local Conflict, p. 175.
60. House of Commons, 8 May 1987, col. 997.
61. Reinhold, Local Conflict, p. 167.
62. House of Commons, 8 May 1987, col. 1004
63. Ibid., col. 1005.
64. House of Commons, 14 May 1987, col. 413.
65. www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab87.htm
66. S. Sanders and G. Spraggs, ‘Section 28 and education’, in Learning Our Lines: Sexuality and Social Control in Education, C. Jones and P. Mahony (eds) (London: The Women’s Press, 1989), p. 94.
67. A. M. Smith, New Right Discourse on Race and Sexuality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1994), p. 184; S. Hall, The Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherism and the Crisis of the Left (London: Verso), pp. 259–67.
68. The full speech is available at www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106941.
69. Reinhold, Local Conflict, p. 199.
70. The final version stated: ‘A local authority shall not (a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality; (b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’.
71. There is a particularly striking parallel here with the genesis of the Video Recordings Act 1984, and its amendment in 1994 in the wake of the murder of James Bulger, blame for which significant sections of the press attempted to pin on ‘video nasties’. In both of these cases, the Conservative government actually tried hard to withstand increasingly shrill calls for legislation emanating from backbenchers and sections of the press, and in both cases they were eventually forced to cave in. (See J. Petley, Film and Video Censorship in Modern Britain, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011), pp. 26–30, 90–3). Entirely unsurprisingly, many of the MPs and newspapers that had played an active role in putting the Video Recordings Act on the statute book and later agitating for its tightening up were the same as those that helped to give birth to Section 28.
72. House of Commons, 8 December 1987, col. 208.
73. Ibid., col. 1226.
74. Ibid., col. 1230
75. Ibid.
76. Ibid., col. 1213.
77. House of Commons, 15 December 1987, col. 990.
78. Ibid., col. 993.
79. Ibid., col 998.
80. Ibid., col. 1000.
81. Ibid., col. 1008.
82. Ibid., col. 1017.
83. Ibid., col. 1008.
84. Ibid.
85. Ibid., col. 1010.
86. Ibid., col. 1025.
87. Quoted in Reinhold, Local Conflict, p. 217.
88. Ibid.
89. Indeed, the story about The Scum was fed to the press by Malcolm Glynn, a Haringey parent-governor and active right-wing campaigner who had tried repeatedly to get the shop closed down, including writing to the Charity Commissioners and demanding that its charitable status be revoked. See J. Dibblin, ‘“Burn it down”’, New Statesman (11 March 1988); and ‘Haringey bookshop faces vicious onslaught from press-inspired bigots’, The Pink Paper (10 March 1988).
90. House of Commons, 29 February 1988, col. 74.
91. House of Commons, 1 March 1988, col. 817.
92. House of Commons, 8 March 1988, col. 186.
93. Those interested in doing so should refer to Sanders and Spraggs, ‘Section 28’; M. Colvin and J. Hawksley, Section 28: a Practical Guide to the Law and its Implications, London: National Council for Civil Liberties, 1989); Jeffery-Poulter, Peers, Queers and Commons; Reinhold, Local Conflict; and Smith, New Right Discourse.
94. These were in the Lords on 11 January; 1, 2 and 29 February; and in the Commons on 9 March.
95. Smith, New Right Discourse, pp. 192–3.
96. S. Hall, C. Critcher, T. Jefferson, J. Clarke and B. Roberts, Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order (London: Macmillan, 1978), p. 223.
97. The most infamous believer in this particular form of ‘magic’ was Adolf Hitler who in Mein Kampf (London: Hutchinson, 1969), stated that:
The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must therefore confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.
(p. 168)
98. S. Hall, ‘The toad in the garden: Thatcherism among the theorists’, in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1988), pp. 44–5.
99. B. Page, The Murdoch Archipelago (London: Simon & Schuster, 2003), p. 479.
100. O. O’Neill, A Question of Trust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 93.
101. L. J. Leveson, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press: Report: Volume III, (London: TSO, 2012), p. 1439.
7
Toxifying the new urban left
James Curran
Introduction
Extensive survey and experimental research over a seventy-year period provides the main source of evidence about media influence.1 Its central argument is that people are not empty vessels filled only with media messages. On the contrary, people have values, opinions and understandings, formed by early socialisation, social networks and personal experience. This inclines people to understand, evaluate and retain media information in highly selective ways that accord with what they think already. Even when people are exposed to media information on a topic they k
now nothing about, they still have core beliefs and general orientations – ‘interpretive schema’ – that predispose them to ‘process’ selectively this information. People, in this view, are not easily manipulated, still less controlled by the media. This cautious assessment has been revised to acknowledge that the media can significantly affect what people think about (‘agenda-setting’) and influence frameworks of public understanding (‘framing’).2 Even so, the central conclusion of this work is, still, that the media do not ‘determine’ public attitudes and behaviour.
Effects research is complemented by reception studies, a research tradition indebted to literary studies and the methodology of commercial focus group research. It argues that meaning is not fixed and inscribed in ‘media texts’ but is created through the interaction of audience and media. This active process of meaning-making is strongly influenced by the ‘discourses’ which audiences bring to their media consumption. Even more than effects research, this tradition emphasises the wayward and selective nature of audience responses.3