LONDON - And so begins the summer proper. For the media, this is a problem. Not for nothing is this time of year known as the Silly Season. The news, for the first time in a while, is starkly devoid of the critical coverage that characterizes the British media for most of the calendar year. When sport becomes front-page news, as the Ashes did over the weekend and the Tour de France and drug-cheat athletes have in the last few days, this is a clear indication of a news drought.
This is not to say that there have not been serious events worthy of coverage. The violence in Northern Ireland, where rioters have clashed with each other and the police on every night since Friday, has seen the wounding of policemen and the recalling of Parliament in the country but, unfortunately, this is an annual occurrence, and is therefore not taken entirely seriously or given much coverage by the UK media.
In the same vein, the death of two reserve soldiers, who allegedly died exhausted while training in the Brecon Beacons on Saturday in Wales on the hottest day of 2013 (so far), has elicited sadness and regret, and statements from politicians. However, again, coverage has been minimal. Death and violence do not fit the summer narrative.
Instead, the British media has turned toward its perennial focus: the Royal Family. The Duchess of Cambridge, formerly known as Kate Middleton, is expecting her child at any moment. The original due date was Saturday, and now the world waits with bated breath as the days tick by. Will the birth be this week? Journalists await the birth feverishly camped outside St Mary’s Hospital, where the child is due to be born (Kate herself is at her family home an hour away in Bucklebury).
Meanwhile, offices hold sweepstakes on the date and sex of the Royal-to-be, and several strains of merchandising, from the “useful” (potties, prams, mugs) to the pointless (doughnuts laced with blue or pink filling) are poised to capture the market.
After living abroad for several years, I have always been surprised at how much people in other countries know about the Royal Family and how much people seem to care. This is, of course, the success of its brand; the Royal Family is seen as both quaint and charming, and draws thousands of tourists on an annual basis.
However, the high-pitched anxiety over the birth in the UK, with every single possible detail scrutinized by the media, is truly something to behold. Metro, a free newspaper available on public transport, demonstrated both a fascination and a light reproach of the monarchy on page two on Monday: William, Duke of Cambridge, was pictured playing polo after being given “the day off” by the mother-to-be.
This is the dichotomy, the inherent juxtaposition of the Royal Family that both inspires interest and reproach. They clearly lead very different lives from us, but at the same time experience things that normal people do. Marriage, birth, death, taxes — these are fundamental aspects of life, which many people undergo, but unfortunately, when the monarchy does so, as it must, it is open to scrutiny that even the best people would struggle with.
This juxtaposition was demonstrated clearly yesterday, beyond the baby: William’s father, Prince Charles, hit headlines after MPs expressed their concern about his tax arrangements. William Nye, the principal private secretary to the Prince and the Duchess of Cornwall, and Keith Willis, the finance director of the Duchy of Cornwall, were grilled by MPs over Charles’s voluntary tax contributions. Margaret Hodge, chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee stated that she was “not comfortable” with the arrangements as they stood and suggested that the Prince should be paying corporation tax.
The figures are not negligible: newspaper reports yesterday stated “the Duchy, which provides an income to the heir to the throne, is a £762-million estate of about 131,000 acres. The Prince of Wales received a record £19 million from the Duchy last year.” The parliamentary committee, which also investigated giants Amazon, Starbucks and Google over tax avoidance, compared the Prince’s estate with these companies.
The coverage of these two aspects has clearly demonstrated, once again, the media’s love-hate relationship with the Royals: adoration of the young couple to the point of hysteria, and mistrust of the older generation and their less than transparent financial dealings. This is a family, which experiences the joys and makes the mistakes that all families make, but which they must do so under a never-failing public spotlight.
However, faced with a dearth of real “hard news”, the British media has turned to the Royal Family, unfailing in its ability to provide news that is consumable both in the UK and abroad, the reliable option at times of drought. One can only pity them, and hope that the child is born sooner rather than later.
@archiewhit
First published in the Buenos Aires Herald on July 17, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment