Age Before Beauty?

In today's Guardian, Joan Bakewell writes of the discrimination she perceives against older women in broadcast media. You can read the article here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/sep/03/television.discriminationatwork

It reminded me of an interview a fellow reporter did when I worked on a local paper in the South West. She had interviewed a locally well-known female newsreader. (I won't mention her name as the lady in question has also worked on national networks in recent years.) About an hour after she'd filed the copy, the news editor came over looking quizzical. "Jules", he said. "It's all good, but, where's the age?".

I was a bit taken a back. Such an amateur mistake. Even I, at that time an intern of only a few weeks, would have been mortified to have done it this was one of the most experienced reporters in the office. But there was an explanation. Female presenters are not welcome in serious television broadcasting once they reach a certain age.

My colleague had not included the news reader's name in the interview because the woman was afraid it would end her career. In fact the interviewee had confessed her employers thought her to be ten years younger than she was.

She had told the reporter that she had not deliberately lied to the broadcasting company, but had failed to correct another's error when her looks were deceptively youthful. She did not want responsibility for the fiction being published, so fearful of the truth, she asked that it be omitted all together.

This points clearly to an environment where sexist age-discrimination is part of the establishment. The presenter's concern was not that she would be discriminated against because of her actual looks, but that her age would make her an unwise choice in the minds of those who still think of female presenters as a visual marketing tool. It suggests a form of ageism which has evolved beyond individual chauvinist instincts into unstated formality.

Ray Lewis - A stab in the back

Borris Johnson is a relatively lucky man. He may have proved himself something of a blind idiot with a worrying lack of rigour in his staff selection procedures, but the important role he had championed Lewis for seems to be shielding his administration from the sharpest fire.

Ray Lewis’ resignation on the basis that the countless accusations against him (really quite a lot to have gone unnoticed) were getting in the way of the Mayor’s work may have been a way of avoiding admission, but it was also a likely prediction of what would ensue did he not get out of the spotlight. Just as ‘blunt 2’ is getting underway, the last thing it needs is to be undermined by scandal and sleaze.

It must be incredibly frustrating for the Labour party not to be able to seize the unbelievable gaff as fierce ammunition. But that would undermine their own cause of getting a handle on knife crime. Ken Livingstone admirably seemed to have recognised this, avoiding the opportunity to really stick the knife in (excuse the pun) at Johnson’s unbelievable oversight and offering a considerable degree of sympathy. One can only hope, in the sake of public interest, that others deal with the blunder as tactfully.

Curbing knife crime is a cause which the media also seem fully behind. Those with a sense of social responsibility are unlikely to want to discredit the campaign. Yet if the accusations are proved true, it is important to expose the weaknesses in the administration which allowed such oversights to occur. If some far-reaching collaborative smear campaign really has occurred, then questions need to be asked about why and how his innocence was not already known as a result of City Hall vetting procedures. The treatment of Lewis and the Johnson administration over the next few weeks will be a test of editors’ skill.

Oranges are not the lonely fruit

I have to admit, I wasn't brimming with excitement at the prospect of reading an article about how to peel an orange. (Times 2, Wednesday 4th June). It rather seemed something more suited to a Delia book - ready to be followed up by tips on where to pay more for ones with the peel already taken off.

But recalling the many articles I'd attempted to type on a gummed-up sticky keyboard and remembering the tell-tale smell which my friends unfailingly remarked upon when entering my room at university I thought I could do worse than to read on. I was becoming sick of buying the comparatively tasteless satsumas on offer in Sainsbury's. 

Amazing. 9am the next morning I am confidently peeling an orange in one piece in an office lift. No mess. No smell. Delicious. I am converted back to the original orange and hope many readers will now be able to enjoy the fruit without alienating the rest of the office.

Would it have happened were she a man?

Many who like to think of themselves as feminists welcomed Hillary Clinton's announced candidacy. It was certainly about time a woman ran for President and reassuring that this one seemed destined to be a winner. 

But then she and her team got scared and it became almost impossible not to cool towards a woman who appeared to be showing more and more of her aggressive, sniping feathers. Equally a sense of unease began to sprout as to the behavior of her increasingly tempestuous husband.

But how ashamed of this should those who deserted her feel? It might be worth considering how her aggressive and statesman-like campaign have been received were she a man. 

Throughout history the assertive woman becomes the shrew, particularly characterised by her reaction, often regarded as hostile and ungracious,  when under-threat. True, many of her comments were ill-judged. But so too were those of Obama and virtually ever other Presidential candidate one can think of to mention. 

Margaret Thatcher often met with criticism in her early days for what she put down to the female qualities in her voice which made her sound shrill and grating when perhaps a man would have just come across as convicted in his message. 

But there are other factors too which forced Hilary out of the 'liberal progressive choice' box and into the role of 'dragon'. Her rival stole her platform of challenging history and implicated her in his attacks on the establishment. Consequently she was forced onto the defensive and into what came across as a negatively charged campaign. 

It almost feels as if it was too late for Hilary. Whether America is ready for a female president is no longer the issue - it is far more interesting, and a challenging to see whether it is ready for a black one. But then, so far evidence suggests the answer to the first question is still 'no'.

Body image and the media

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/16/france.law

Should the UK be considering similar measures?

It's hard to argue that the existence of 'pro-ana' sites is anything but dangerous. The websites offer advice to people who are already displaying concerns associated with extreme insecurity. It seems plausible to attribute some responsibility to the givers of advice for actions taken in response to it.

But the idea that this could apply to the media opens up a much wider debate - namely the press' responsibility for the way in which people, and not just young women, receive the images they promote. This doesn't just go for celebrity or dieting magazines, but for every journalist who is under pressure to find eye-pleasing case studies. Alice Wignall highlighted the predicament earlier this week in an article entitled 'Anyone here been abused and wears a size 10?'.

Where do we draw the line between noting an unrealistic portrayal of normality and actually holding the media responsible for the consequences when people internalise those images to destructive effect? What about all those 30 and 40 somethings who pursue plastic surgery to stay looking unnaturally young, obsessed with maintaining the body of a 22-year-old? It's not so blatant as anorexia, but it's hard to defend it as a completely healthy attitude to the body.