Do you have any really bad examples of representations of poverty in the media?
When does the media get it wrong?
Please post examples of really bad representations of poverty and tell us why its so wrong?
Formal Complaint to BBC
Dear BBC complaints team
I am writing to complain about the serious and damaging misrepresentations made by John Waite on Face the Facts regarding the Marsh Farm estate in Luton and our efforts to regenerate our community as part of the governments New Deal for Communities programme.
There are many cases of serious misrepresentation of facts throughout the entire programme but for purposes of initiating my complaint I will focus on the most serious and damaging wrong assertion made in the programme.
Waite gave the listener totally inaccurate information relating to the Marsh Farm Community Development Trust and its investments as part of the New Deal for Communities project, contrasting this alleged lack of investments with the New Deal programme in Norwich which was presented as a success story with £15 million capital investments and an annual return on those investments of between £3-400,000 per annum.
To emphasise the point the presenter John Waite said:
“An objective which – at least in Norwich – is well on the way to being met. Everyone I spoke to there said the £30 million of NDC funding so far released had been very well spent. Contrast that to Luton, just a hundred miles away, and its Marsh Farm estate, and the story’s a very different one. No smart new business centre there – just a tired old shopping centre.”
The programme goes on to give the clear impression that Marsh Farm New Deal has invested £27 million with nothing to show for it with regard to assets or sustainable project potential.
This could not be further from the truth.
Whilst doing his report from the Purley Centre, Waite was in fact standing directly opposite the largest single community owned building in the UK – a 120,000 sq ft former factory sitting directly in the centre of our community – which was paid for, equipped, brought into use and is kept in operation by New Deal funding. It used to be known as the ‘Coulters Factory’ and is now known as the ‘CERC’.
The sign at the front clearly says ‘The Marsh Farm Community Enterprise and Resource Centre’ and if the journalist researching this had taken a glance at Companies House records they show the existence of a company called ‘The Peoples Property Company Marsh Farm’ which holds a single asset – the CERC building I am referring to.
MFCDT set up the Peoples Property Company when the building was purchased and the MFCDT capacity building team is currently preparing the ground for opening up membership of the company board beyond its current membership (resident representatives and partners) to the entire community, with a view to post NDC assets management strategies etc.
The CERC currently houses many “very smart” new spaces including a new employment agency, Princes Trust offices, brand new computer suites serviced by the local colleges, drugs outreach offices, community outreach offices, fully equipped cafeteria, space for local small businesses, a number of operating social enterprises, office space for Marsh Farm Trust regeneration team, community police rooms, a neighbourhood warden base, victim support offices, a bricklaying college, car valeting service, off road driving project for local youth, a community radio station base and more.
MFCDT ownership of the building has also made possible (by provision of low cost or free space) the prospect of generating dozens of sustainable new jobs in a range of sustainable new social enterprises delivering goods and services to our community and beyond. These jobs would be prioritized for take up by members of our community who are most in need – none of which would be possible without having purchased the invaluable asset that is the Marsh Farm CERC.
Whilst there is still work to be done to ensure post NDC sustainability of the CERC we do have an achievable strategy here on Marsh Farm which is clearly set out in the public document that is the MFCDT 10 year Delivery Plan.
Further to all of this, MFCDT are in discussion with Luton Council about devolution of some of our environmental services that are currently delivered by the council on a town wide scale. The thinking at Marsh Farm Trust has always been that localised delivery could radically improve the service – hence the decision to invest in purchase of our Community Enterprise and Resource Centre. None of the above would be even up for consideration if not for the investment made by MFCDT in the asset.
Just 6 months ago I co-authored an article for leading regeneration magazine ‘Third Sector’ with Dr Gareth Potts, Head of Research and Policy for the British Urban Regeneration Association (BURA) setting out this strategy. Its the availability of all of this information – whether it’s a massive building sitting right in front of John Waite’s own eyes or easily researchable public documents – which makes the misrepresentations all the more shocking. I thought Face the Facts and BBC Radio 4 have a reputation for better reporting than this absolute nonsense which has been broadcast both today and on Friday.
I am happy to forward the article I co-wrote with Dr Potts and any other relevant information to help you with your deliberations, but would ask that this complaint be dealt with speedily as the damage could not come at a worse time for our community building efforts here in Marsh Farm
Glenn Jenkins
Resident, Marsh Farm
To read a full transcript of the program Face the Facts or listen to the original Radio 4 broadcast please click here
Secret Millionaire: Who benefits?
Channel 4’s Secret Millionaire prides itself on bringing to light the social inequalities in Britain and highlighting the importance of ‘modern day philanthropy’.
By sending an undercover millionaire into deprived areas looking for worthy causes to give their money to, the program aims to uncover the secret heroes of deprived areas.
But who is it really for?
Is the focus ordinary people who daily struggle with poverty or the emotional journey of the millionaires themselves?
Though undoubtedly moving, this program disenfranchises the local people it tries to help but by making them lucky receivers of charity, grateful that one ignorant rich person has been educated in how hard it is to be poor. Rather than forcing the viewer to question a society where so much social inequality exists, it simply makes the millionaires feel better about being rich because they have helped a few poor people.
There is very little that is ‘modern’ about this ‘modern day philanthropy’. Is it not just the same as Victorian philanthropy where the wealthy would give alms to the poor and if this is the case what does it say about ‘modern-day Britain?’.
Watch a clip from The Secret Millionaire below and let me know if you agree or disagree
Channel 4’s Cutting Edge documentary Rich kid, Poor Kid tells the story of two London teenages who live in the same street but inhabit different worlds. As the title suggests they are separated by great social and financial inequality one attending private school and one living in a council flat. A great deal of the narrative is structured around the girls living so geographically close together but does it really give an accurate picture of the local area or those who live in it?
Do you live in the Rich Kid, Poor kid area? Is it a realistic depiction of the way people interact?
Has the area you live in been in a documentary?
How was your area portrayed?
A Unicef report conducted in 2007 concluded that British children were the most impoverished in the industrialised world. What does this say about our country and how reliable is this report?
For example, whilst Britain came 18th out of 21 when it comes to material wealth, the measure used by UNICEF was to classify anyone living in a household with less than the national average as in poverty. Of course, this means that whilst we may have more children living in such a state as other countries, does not necessarily mean they are poorer than some of the countries who outscored the United Kingdom in the survey. Does this figure say more about the extravagent wealth of some than the poverty of the many?
Ranking just a position above the UK was the USA, which is a matter of serious interest, with Germany’s position in the middle reaches of the table meaning three of the most vibrant world economies fail to provide an adequate basis for their children to prosper. What do you make of this report? Is it cause for concern, or a case of lies, lies and statistics? According to the BBC, to newspapers etc, we are failing our children. Do you agree?
To watch a first edit of the Poverty and Participation in the Media project please visit:
Poverty and Participation in the Media- 7 minute edit
Any comments?
Napoleon Hill wrote the famous book, ‘Think and Become Rich’ some 70 years ago. Having studied some of the most successful people in history, he noted that the key to success was through your mindset. But how easy is it to simply, think it and become rich. Or even to become happy through a simple state of mind, irrespective of material wealth?
Jenny poses this question, referring to Hill’s work, asking whether we can change our lives through our outlook? And is poverty merely a question of wealth? Or is it a state of mind, a form of mental richness?
The Pepys estate and Marsh Farm workshops took place in early August. We hoped to discover what people from the estates felt about poverty in the media and how people (such as themselves) are represented in the media and TV. The people from each estate vary in culture and background (some are born into poverty and others have had it imposed upon them by circumstance).
At the Pepys estate, we had 4 participants. One of the most prevalent topics was on an article that emphasised postcode prejudice. Another popular subject of debate was the TV documentary “The Towers”. All of the participants were horrified at the inherent implications of both the article and programme.
At Marsh Farm, we had more people attend (8). This time, with a larger group, we discussed general poverty issues as well as some interesting specifics. One such topic regarded the different types of poverty (financial poverty, spiritual poverty or emotional poverty).
At the start of each workshop, the participants were given a tutorial on how to set up and use the camera/film equipment. After this they considered relevant questions (for example: “what does it mean to be poor in the UK?” and “how does the media represent it?”). Then they took it in turn to interview each other.
Below are some comments from the participants regarding the workshops:
‘It gave me a chance to voice my opinion which I wanted to do for a long time’
‘It was an opportunity to hear what people from Marsh Farm had to say about the state of the area’
‘I found the technical side filming interesting’
‘Learning how to use the basic of the camera was good, so if I ever wanted to learn how to use the camera in the future. I have the basic knowledge’
‘It was good because we were able to put our views across that don’t always get across’.
‘The interviews reinforced my existing opinion’
According to a recent article in the Guardian, ‘only 176, or just over half a percent, of nearly 30,000 pupils who got three As at A Level last year were eligible for free school meals’.
If these statistics are correct, it indicates that the poorest in society are still not accessing higher level education. You cannot attend a good university, in most cases, if you do not have good A Levels.
What affect does this have on the media?
If you do not go to University, what chance do you have of working at the BBC or one of the mainstream newspapers? And if none of the poorest social groups work in the main stream media, what are the chances of a fair representation of this social group?
The Tower is a documentary TV series, recently broadcast on BBC1, which claims to give an accurate portrayal of the social issues on the Aragon Tower on the Pepys estate. The Tower has been sold to private developers Berkley Homes and the programme centres around the contrast between the old and new residents. Some have heralded this as an excellent of portrayal the deep-seated social problems of large council estates, contrasting the lives of local council tenants with a recent influx of wealthy home owners, to highlight the issues around ‘mixed development’. Others have claimed the program relies on old forms of stereotyping, portraying the mass of council tenants as either brow-beaten victims, alcoholic drug -riddled junkies or violent criminals.
How accurate is The Tower portrayal of the Pepys Estate? Is it possible to make a popular TV show about social issues without using the most extreme examples? Is this sort of program useful to remind people that real problems do exist in these areas or does is simple make the problems worse? Can you show poverty in a bad light without showing poor people in a bad light.
