The art of warfare

John Lloyd argues that the treatment of politics (and politicians) by the British media ­- both broadcasters and the press -­ has had the effect of coarsening political discourse. We have, he says, moved from cynicism to scepticism. He thinks that the degrading of politics is harmful to democracy and calls for a renewal of ‘civic journalism’ in order to cure the problem.Is his assessment of the media’s relationship with the political sphere correct, and - if so - is there any hope for his solution?

Watching a recent broadcast of BBC’s Newsnight it was easy to see why John Lloyd believes the media has moved from cynicism to scepticism and that development is harming political discourse. The guests, the assorted candidates for London mayor, were grilled by presenter Jeremy Paxman and he bellowed at them to answer the question, answer it more succinctly, more truthfully or just better. At the same time the candidates squirmed behind their podiums, dodged the difficult questions, recited their prepared lines and stayed on message but did not deliver any answers that might reveal flaws in their plans.

Similarly, during last week’s Question Time, when debate turned to the abolition of the 10p tax rate, Conservative MP Caroline Spelman was asked if a Tory government would re-instate the tax bracket. Ms Spelman used the time to helpfully outline the role of the opposition as the party to protect the interests of the country and oppose that which is wrong. David Dimbleby told her to stop dithering and pressed her for an answer on what the Conservatives would do. Ms Spelman floundered for a while, and then said she was confident they would defeat the bill so the question did not merit an answer, leaving the audience still mystified.

These two examples are not chosen because either is particularly dramatic but because they are recent, generic demonstrations of the kind of questioning and answering the electorate sees on almost a daily basis. This style of interviewing is the chicken-and-the-egg question of the political media. Which came first? The aggressive interviewing that forced politicians on to the defensive or the frustrating spin of the politicians that obliged interviewers to push harder?

In his book What the Media Are Doing to Our Politics Lloyd accuses interviewers like Paxman and John Humphrys of constantly and unconsciously tapping into the belief that "today's politicians and politics are a travesty of those who were with us in the good old days". In a later essay in Prospect magazine he argued that ‘spin’ was a reaction to a more aggressive media. However, in an inteview with MediaGuardian in 2005 Paxman rejected such criticism and said:"It seems to me that the way to remove people's cynicism is, when asked a straight question, to give a straight answer. The cure for cynicism is simply to engage honestly."

The then chairman of the BBC Micheal Grade had recently called for an end to automatic cynicism. He said the corporation should avoid "slipping into the knee-jerk cynicism that dismisses every statement from every politician as, by definition, a lie. Scepticism is a necessary and vital part of the journalist's toolkit. But when scepticism becomes cynicism it can close off thought and block the search for truth."Grade’s point is crucial, when the media immediately assume they are being deceived and manipulated they help nobody. Likewise when the press are deceived and manipulated by policians they become immediately suspicious in the future.

In his memoirs, Louis Heren, a former deputy editor of the Times, wrote that he always asked himself, “Why is this lying bastard lying to me?” Immediately assuming every political operative is about to lie to you is not conducive to a productive interview but nor is swallowing the party line. A healthy scepticism is the ideal that is slipping away.

In a feature about the balance between cynicism and scepticism published in the Times in December 2006 David Aaronovitch said that the public’s eagerness to believe the worst about politics and politicians means we now shy away from the truth. He said: “Yesterday I was listening to a radio discussion on political parties, featuring a Daily Mail sketch writer. He gave it out as fact that Commons whipping and party discipline was more severe than ever before. But as Philip Cowley, of Nottingham University, has proved, there have been more rebellions by MPs over the past half decade than at any time in parliamentary history. The truth is the exact reverse of the conventional wisdom. As any true sceptic should know.”

Our level of cynicism about today’s politicians means we will accept the worst about them even when the facts contradict it. Aaronovitch continued by saying that if he could he would give a press award to Martin Kettle of The Guardian: “There, he regularly has the nerve to suggest that this Government and this political system, while flawed, are fairly decent. You should see what he gets by way of response on his paper’s comment website! He’s a sycophant, he should be sacked, he wants a peerage, he’s being paid off by shadowy forces. The commenters are united in their intolerant certainty that they are the sceptics and that Kettle (who could — as some do — easily mount the bully pulpit and throw red meat to them) is the voice of smothering orthodoxy.”He argued that it is the dogmatic nature of cynicism that is most dangerous, a factor that does not apply to scepticism, which by its own nature cannot blindly pursue one ‘truth’.

However, while the treatment of politicians by the press has certainly damaged the political discourse, it would be unfair and naive to say the treatment is unwarranted. The obvious example of Alastair Campbell’s aggressive attempt to control the news agenda and punish the journalists who gave unfavourable coverage set a hostile precedent that remains today. While a tension is beneficial, an active hostility is not.

Lloyd’s call for a renewal of ‘civic journalism’ maybe seen as idealistic but it is not an ideal. As he said in an article on opendemocracy.net in 2005, the media is “among the greatest powers of contemporary democratic societies” and that must be preserved. The media should be powerful or its purpose becomes defunct. The notion that “the media are now no longer functioning as an inquiring check on the excesses of the political class, instead they have become an alternative establishment, one supremely dedicated to a theatrical distrust of individual politicians and a furious and calculated indifference to the real-life intricacies of world policy-making” is overdramatic and scare-mongering.

Civic journalism is not the answer because it would create more ill-informed hysteria, as Aaronovitch demonstrates with his anecdote about Martin Kettle. Instead the media that already exists should assess how their attitude to politics is damaging discourse in this country and politicians should consider carefully if their equally hostile attitude to the press is just as much to blame.

Career doom

While I may be forging a reasonable path through the murky world of freelance journalism - my latest piece was in the Indy yesterday - Peter Wilby's doom and gloom on the front page of today's MediaGuardian has rather depressed me. It cannot be denied that most newsrooms I have set foot in have been rather heavy on the boys but I did not expect anyone to openly say that women will struggle to get ahead in journalism in this day and age.
However, Brown's plans to force employers to provide more flexible working hours for mothers is not the answer. All it will do is make women seem less employable and anyone will active ovaries will seem like a flight-risk. Additionally, co-workers will not want to work with women who have children because they will be obliged to work the anti-social hours that mothers don't have to. All this will lead to further hostility towards women with children and women 'at risk' of having children.
While women should by no means be punished for having children and forced to stay at home darning shocks, nor should childless workers be left to pick up their slack.

Election fever

Having spent the week harrassing poor homeowners who have taken in lodgers for a freelance piece I was writing I am now in the glam offices of the Press Association covering the local elections.
After a brief frenzy of excitement when our 'men on the ground' were ringing in constantly with fresh tales of Tory triumph and Labour losses we are now ha-humming staring at the phones for results of the London Assembly and the Mayor.
Not having a vote for the Mayoral election has been a bit of a sore spot with me this week and I looked longingly at the Islington polling station I strolled past yesterday afternoon.
Having bounded out of bed to vote early yesterday morning I have spent the the time since then bitterly resenting the lucky sods participating in the KenandBoris Show and haranguing my London friends who did not bother.
I'm not entirely sure why I'm such a voting junkie but you can't keep me away from a polling station with love or money. I think even if your predominant emotion is apathy it's important to make the symbolic gesture of voting because of the amount fought and sacrificed for the privilege. Maybe my sanctimonious lectures are the reason nobody wants me to talk about youth voting anymore. Hmmm.

One for the road

Despite being more keen on drinking than driving, I was entrusted with advising Independent readers about car breakdown cover this week. I would definitely classify myself as a top-flight expert now and hope many a motorist will call on me for assistance in the future.
While embracing my ambition to clarify all matters of transport, I also wrote about the new train price tariff which is gripping stuff.

Linking thinking

Carrying on the (dubious) theme of using this blog simply to link to my published stuff in a egotistical rampage, I'm whacking up some more work.
I spent a delightful few days playing with a lovely clever website that does all your bargain hunting for you on supermarket sites. I found this utterly genuis and wrote a rather effusive piece saying just that.
I also wrote some gripping stuff about how naughty easyjet is, how depressed the market is, how expensive Europe is, how lying drivers are, how cheap the iphone is and how uncomplacent Brown is, and other such heartening and motivational stuff.
I have been in Bristol for the past two days for an evangelical christian hen weekend. While the conservative christians were nothing but charming, the fun was extremely wholesome and there was even pottery painting on the agenda. Quite a long way from binge drinking and male strippers...

Concerned of Tunbridge Wells

In my new persona of angry letter writer I was pleased to see that other people from City had also written defensive letters to the Guardian about Peter Wilby's piece about social elitism in journalism. Josh Loeb, of Angry Young Man fame, and the head of the broadcast journalism, Lis Howell, also have letters published here.
Wilby's article today about Roger Alton's move to the Independent is interesting. There is definitely a lot of excitement in the office and I think Wilby's point that Alton would not have agreed to take over unless he had received assurances about the future is valid. I hear he will move to change the 'statement' front pages and will hopefully bring new life to the floundering title. The Indy certainly has a lot of potential and I would be sad to write it off just yet.
On a completely different note, I was excited to be reviewed on Headline Money today. The lovely Rosemary Gallagher, who took me under her wing at The Scotsman last summer, wrote this:
"As chill winds blow through the City, it's springtime for savers. This more uplifting piece, by Laura Harding, focuses on a positive feature of the credit crunch, namely, how banks and building societies are vying to attract savers with high-paying accounts. If you want to bag one of these accounts, move quickly as they won't be on for long, is the message from Harding."

More independent thought

More tasty treats in the Indie on Sunday today. Working in personal finance has made me slightly paranoid about my financial future and I stare at bank statements, pay slips and demands that I pay back my loans with increasing horror. Maybe I should take note of my own advice to save my way through the credit crunch or take out insurance in the event I get pregnant and think I might have twins (you thought I was kidding last week??) Anyway, the rest of my stuff is not quite so optimistic: the doom of Facebook, accusations of market abuse, the doom for first time buyers, fines for a failing communications firm and help with energy bills for poor households. Well the last one isn't doom but I was working a theme.
Far more fun is the city diary I compiled on Friday which is also in today's paper. I now live for business gossip and tittle-tattle...

BNP in the Ham and High

I'm interested in the reaction of some Ham and High staff to the publication of a BNP ad in their paper. Their point that they do not want the BNP's cash to be paying their wages is completely legitimate and I understand why they do not want to give credibility to the organisation by advertising it. However, in a democracy that is supposedly for free speech it is interesting that we will only let speak the people who agree with us.
Geoff Martin, the editor of the H&H seems to agree and wrote on page 4, "To be able to tolerate those we vehemently disagree with is the hallmark of an open, egalitarian and democratic society, where freedom of speech and expression are sacrosanct."
So why do journalists, who prize the freedom of speech above anything else, want to suppress it? The staff of a local paper I worked at over Christmas once refused to send their pages to the printer until an advert for the BNP had been removed.
I understand their objections to the organisation, objections that I too share, but these objections seem to be more important to them than the sanctity of free speech. The idea that there are degrees of what it is ok to say is slightly alarming. I''m not sure Voltaire would approve.

Gordon Brown + malaria crisis = American Idol

The weirdest story of the day has to be this. I'm not convinced anyone involved knew the audience of American Idol. When Brown's Scottish accent started booming about the plight of malaria-ridden African children I'm reasonably confident the most common reaction was "Wha'?" or maybe "Huh?" The newly hired PR in charge of stopping Gordon looking like a wally must have been on a tea break.

Commitment's a dirty word

The moment in The Apprentice when the absolute spanner of a team leader, Ian, demanded they go round the table so his team could proclaim their allegiance to him and their determination to win a treat from SirAlan will go down in team-building history.
The fact this suggestion was not greeted with scoffs but declarations they would offer 110% commitment was equally mirth-worthy.
In fact there was no limit to the treats tonight's gripping installment had in store. The idea that Italian pub grub should be served with false moustaches and Italian accents was hailed as genius, the plan only tripped up when the minute-taker couldn't spell 'accents'. It was ok though, his comrades knew what he meant.
The stripping 'Bollywood' dancer was a feast for the eyes, as was the sight of fascist ex-team leader Jenny going to beserk with uncontained delight at the sight.
It is pleasing to me that SirAlan seems to be methodically firing the boys with the worst hair cuts so maybe the finalists will all be thick as two short planks but will look like Toni and Guy models. One can only hope.

Wealthy and connected?

Peter Wilby's rant in today's MediaGuardian arguing that journalism is a profession for the wealthy and connected seems a little skewed.
He makes the legitimate point that to be able to forge a career in the media some kind of expensive postgraduate qualification is necessary. As a result, it excludes people who cannot afford the fees. He also argues that the work experience so crucial to advancement is the preserve of people living in and around London or those who can afford to pay for somewhere to stay and outlines the supposed small pool of universities from which students on my course are taken.
While there are a number from Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol and Leeds there are also people from Exeter, St Andrews, Manchester, UCL, Imperial, Durham and Lancashire. His argument that we are not representative of the population because these universities take people from fee-paying schools is misguided. While a number did go to private or public schools, they were all selective, meaning they were already deemed clever enough to meet the standards of the establishment. It makes sense they would then go on to good universities and get places on competitive postgraduate courses.
His argument that courses such as the one I am undertaking are the privilege of the wealthy is undermined by his own employer.
The Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian, is paying the fees of three of my colleagues who might not otherwise be able to cover the expense. Not only that but the trust sets them up with work experience at papers such as the Guardian, Observer and MEN and pays accommodation costs over the holidays.
In addition, I was given funding by the Chancellor of my undergraduate university and a number of other colleagues have funding from the AHRC and have bank loans.
Every single person at City has worked incredibly hard to be there and forge a career for themselves in a highly competitive and ruthless industry. We have already competed to get on the course and this experience has set us up to carry on competing for jobs and promotions and whatever else comes our way.
Such a narrow minded view of his own profession shows Wilby as a man keen to see the worst in his successors, instead of supporting and encouraging those entering the industry at such a precarious time.

Miss Independent

I did some freelance work at the Independent on Sunday last week and am posting the links here. The delectable selection includes the NAO's report on HMRC, the struggle the middle classes face to survive the credit crunch, the decline in customer satisfaction in home phone companies and the virtue in choosing consistently strong savings accounts. Wait with bated breath for the feature next weekend on parents who take out insurance in case they have twins.

Byline + Brooker = Bliss

The last piece I wrote for the Guardian is in today and I am thrilled to see it leading the section. I am equally delighted by the return of Charlie Brooker in G2. He has been away for the last few weeks and so I have lived a life of misery. If his columns are anything to go by, so has he.
His page-long rant about the new series of the Apprentice confirms my new conviction that it is officially OK to talk about my guilty pleasure.
Every single paper I read last Thursday contained a lengthy post-mortem on the first agonising hour of the genius series and I hope they will continue to do so. While shows like Big Brother ceased to contain any social commentary merit when they became lengthy audtion tapes for Simon Fuller, the Apprentice is a fascinating insight into the mind of the seriously deluded. Titbits such as "The spoken word is my tool" and "I am the best salesperson in Europe" have already been touted as examples of the candidates egomania but there was also comedy gold when Raef defended himself for labelling the fish wrong. For every mistake I make from now on I will say "At least I didn't label a shark a hamster" and the greatest wits in Christendom will be stumped for a response.

What a Darling

My week with Larry Elliott took me to the Treasury yesterday to interview the Chancellor. Larry received a summons in the morning and in the afternoon we trotted off to Westminster keen to hear the news that Darling was clearly keen to impart. After a bit of a wait while he was ferried back from the Brown/Sarkozy extended photocall at the Emirates, we were ushered in for our audience.
Having only ever seen Mr Darling on TV, I had to suppress my childish urge to stare at the famous eyebrows. He was charm personified though and gave Larry a great story about new legislation to introduce US style plea-bargaining laws for City bad boys who manipulate the markets. The piece is today's splash.
I've also clocked up another shared by-line with a depressing-but-interesting piece about consumer confidence.
I spent this morning at Centre Point at a CBI press briefing to hear even more about how the economy is going to hell and we should probably all just give up now. There will potentially be huge job losses and confidence in the financial services sector is plummeting. Hopefully the piece will lead the section on Monday.

Economically minded

I'm spending the week on the Economics desk of the Guardian while the global economy wades through the doom and gloom and consumers feel the crunch in their wallets and see it on the front pages. If ever there was a time to move into financial journalism, this has got to be it.
In the US public opinion is now as low as it was when Nixon was in the Oval Office. This is my first offering, which is in today's paper. I've also written a report on the US stock market, which is making me seriously reconsider my ambition to work in the States.

Fags, booze and the Budget

Yesterday's Budget bumped up the price of cigarettes and alcohol. In my capacity as online contributor to The Hackney Post, my esteemed colleague Kat Baker and I took to the streets to get some feedback.
My first foray into the world of video journalism was not without difficulty, namely the camera battery's early death, but we ploughed on anyway and mastered the scientific complexity of Windows MovieMaker in no time.

Hackney needs the Post

As part of the production segment of the journalism course at City we are producing weekly papers. My group has set up the Hackney Post to cover news, features, sport, art and business in the borough. While undertaking this project a lot of us have realised the huge gap in the market for an impartial view of the area. While the Hackney Gazette is obviously struggling with a small team and a small budget it makes little attempt to provide interesting and informed commentary and could easily double up as a Council factsheet. While the fate of struggling local papers is very sad, it would be far sadder if they made more of an effort to contribute something to the community. There has been more than one occassion when one of the Post's reporters has come up with a better take on the story than the Gazette, simply because they have put in the effort. Josh Loeb points this out in his excellent opinion piece.
My far less esteemed contributions are here: NME Awards after party report, Rock Against Racism, Leona Lewis's struggle to buy a house, Jews to give verbal consent to hospital treatment, Leona's Africa trip.

Power v the press

I am staggered by the reaction to Gerri Peev's decision to print Samantha Power's comments about Hillary Clinton. Power told Peev that Clinton was "a monster" on the record but after she said it declared it was off the record. To say something is off the record after it has been said completely undermines the relationship between source and journalist and every political operative, including Power, knows that.
'Off the record' is an agreement between the source and the reporter. Saying something is off the record after the fact denies the journalist the opportunity to agree to it.
Of course sometimes journalists let sources get away with that kind of thing, knowing they will be useful in the future. However, they are certainly under no ethical obligation to do so and MSNBC's Tucker Carlson is out of his mind to suggest this episode showcases the low standards of the British press. His smart remarks about journalistic ethics are captured here by the HuffPo.
In his outrageous interview with Peev he really showed that many American journalists lack the nous and backbone that Peev herself has shown. She had a story and no reason not to run it. Obama has had a relatively free ride in the press and Power's comments highlight that his staff are not as pure of thought as he himself claims to be.

Politicians v Hacks

At the end of January I saw Alastair Campbell give the annual Hugh Cudlipp memorial lecture at the London College of Communications. Whatever you think of Campbell, it can't be denied that he can hold an audience. He berated the 24-press for declining standards as rumour and scandal is reported as fact to feed the beast of constant news. In the Q&A session at the end he was, unsuprisingly, accused of singlehandedly detroying the relationship between politicians and the press. He rather halfheartedly defended himself but his words rung in my ears when I wrote a feature about how the British media impacts the public’s attitude to politicians. Take a look.

It has always been inevitable that the media would be the British public’s gatekeeper to politics. For the millions of people who do not watch BBC Parliament or travel to Westminster to observe politics in action close up, the media acts as a filter of information for the British people. To improve their public profile an MP will actively court the press and as a result, the media plays a powerful role in shaping how the public view politicians. The stories that shift papers are those the MPs haven’t put into the hands of the journalist. There’s nothing the press enjoys more than revealing the misdemeanours of public servants.
In 2005 the Labour MP Clive Soley wrote in the British Journalism Review that the press’s desire for scandal about politicians is doing a disservice to both press and politics:
“The public may be more impressed with us both if we could be seen and heard discussing the policy options, instead of some of the more trivial issues often concerning personal behaviour that fill so much editorial space. Democracy is profoundly important. To make it function properly, press and politicians need to review the way they work and to do it now.”
Every time the media salivates over another political drama the issues and message of the government of the day become distracted and corrupted. The delight expressed in the majority of the press when an MP gets caught in trouble does little to elevate politicians in the eyes of the voters.
While newspaper proprietors may gleefully rub their hands together every time an MP fiddles their expenses or gets too close to their secretary there have been just as many instances when the press has been just as manipulated as the public has.
It would be easy to blame former Blair spindoctor Alastair Campbell for all manner of sins regarding the public’s contempt for politicians, Campbell himself was part of a far greater machine.
As he said at the annual Hugh Cudlipp lecture last month, the appetite for 24 hour news is insatiable and must be filled. As a result, all networks and newspapers are constantly looking for a better story than their competitors and they want to get it first. Stories about dirty-dealing politicians sell well because they now fit the mould of public expectation.
When Andrew Gilligan wrote in the Mail on Sunday that Campbell was responsible for ‘sexing up’ the dossier about Weapons of Mass Destruction, he cemented the common perception that Campbell was a master manipulator. However, the Hutton Inquiry that followed the suicide of weapons expert Dr David Kelly revealed the rot that had set in with both the press and the politicians.
David Cox from the Conservative Party’s Broadcasting Policy Group wrote in the BJR that: “The overall outcome of the Kelly affair has been to entrench public contempt for politicians.” But he also said that it highlighted fundamental flaws in the BBC’s approach to news gathering. In his essay he wrote: It is not only Alastair Campbell who considers the BBC to have strayed from its proper path in its dealings with the late doctor. Some of the BBC's Governors have apparently been wondering whether the corporation "should stick to reporting news, instead of trying to make it". Yet broadcast news chiefs have thus become understandably determined to enhance the popular appeal of their output. Endless visual rejigs, an influx of nubile newsreaders and the prioritisation of celebrity gossip bear witness to this ambition. The kind of engagement and sensation which seem to work in print have seemed another obvious way to put bums on sofas. If this has had to mean sacrificing central features of the traditional order, that has been considered a price worth paying.”
The public’s contempt for politicians is now so deeply entrenched it is only matched by the contempt the public feels for the medium that peddles it stories of political scandal. Newspapers are so longer reliable sources because so many stories are published unchecked. As Nick Davies argues in his book Flat Earth News, the rush to get the story defeats the need to verify it first. Other newspapers are regarded as valid sources instead of the centre of the story.
The media have become so used to being deceived by government spokespeople it is no longer compulsory to check the facts with the relevant department, so high is the expectation of being lied to. The lack of trust between press and politics means that both arenas suffer and the public is both deceived and disillusioned. Until both parties stop regarding the other as the enemy to be battled and defeated, the public will continue to perceive both as sources of misinformation rife with political agenda.
Therefore, the press may be the gatekeepers to the public’s attitude to politicians but the press’s coverage is rarely seen as the Holy Grail of truth and wisdom. Perhaps the British press could take a lead from its US counterpart, where news and opinion are well distinguished, and the news is checked and verified, while opinion is clearly marked as such. While political agenda and a blanket feeling of mistrust dominate the British press, the public’s attitude can only be one of contempt to both professions, which will do nothing to boost ailing voter turnout records and falling newspaper circulation figures.

The sensitivity issue

How do you encourage a victim of trauma to share the intimate details of their ordeal without seeming like a insensitive vulture? This is surely one of the hardest tasks facing journalists who have to interview victims of tragedy. I went to panel discussion on interviewing vulnerable people who suddenly find themselves in the news a few weeks ago, it consisted of Andrew Hogg, ex-Sunday Times news editor, ex-Medical Foundation for the Care of the Victims of Torture and now at Christian Aid, Caroline Hawley, BBC correspondent who has covered Iraq, the McCanns and dozens of other conflict situations, Vanessa Jolly, who sets up such interviews for the Sunday Times News Review and Steve Swinford, now on theSunday Times news desk who was the first journalist to interview Kate McCann.

This panel went some way to prepare us for an assignment to write a first-person 'Best of Times, Worst of Times' feature. I interviewed a woman who underwent a double mastectomy after she was diagnosed with vicious breast cancer. She has recently set up a charity which provides a support network for women who have lost their breasts - the Bosom Buddies Trust . I've posted the piece below.

Chrystalla Spire, 49, had both breasts removed when she learnt that she would be plagued by tumours for the rest of her life. As a divorced mother of three children, she wanted them to see that something positive could be created out of her experience so set up a charity to support women who have lost their breasts, the Bosom Buddies Trust.

I realised there was something wrong when the nurses started holding my hand all the time. I had found a lump the size of a large pea when I was in the shower and I had a history of cysts in both my breasts.
I saw this creep of a doctor and he made me feel I was riddled with cancer. He said because of where it was it had to be elsewhere, if it’s in the stem of the breast tissue then it must have spread there from somewhere else.
I remember sinking to my knees in my corridor and thinking “What on earth…?”
I saw another doctor who reassured me it was just in one place and I had an operation taking out the whole tumour and a large chunk of breast tissue.
The tumour was so severe the oncologist said, “If you were my wife, I would tell you to have chemo” but I knew how I would react to chemotherapy, or at least I felt I knew how I would react. I was scared of losing my hair and being sick all the time. I knew I wouldn’t handle it.
Instead I had radiotherapy for 6 weeks. The week I started was the week of the 7/7 bombing. The day it happened was the only day I didn’t have to go into London to see a dietician or something before it started.
I went in the next day and London was so dead. I became terrified of the tube so I started getting different trains and walking 20 minutes to the hospital. I was 7 1/2 stone by the time I finished radiotherapy.
We went on holiday soon after and when we came back I had a post-radiotherapy check. We were all so breezy about it, thinking how we could go for lunch afterwards but they found abnormal tissue.
I got to the stage where I didn’t ask questions anymore. You get to the point where you don’t want to know. It started all over again with biopsies and scans, the doctor said he regarded the abnormal tissue as a marker for future tumours. He suggested I have a bilateral mastectomy where they remove both breasts. No one had ever mentioned that before but I knew I couldn’t live with scans all the time. Every single time you feel something your life goes on the pause button, you can’t make plans for the future.
I had the mastectomy and it was just massive, a huge operation, nothing prepares you for what it’s going to be like. I was in hospital for 2 weeks, 10 hours in the operating theatre. I couldn’t get out of bed for five days.
I had reconstructive surgery at the same time and the first thing I remember was lifting up my gown and seeing that I still had two breasts. I thought however bad it is, it’s ok.
The first implants were horrible though, like having two rocks strapped to my chest, I couldn’t wear a bra at all and one was floating under my armpit.
The recovery was so slow and when I mentioned it to my doctor he said, “You do realise I’ve skinned you from your neck to your breast bone?” That shut me up.
There was a Muslim woman opposite me in the ward. She was in the middle of her chemo and they were advising her to have a mastectomy but her mother was saying, “Oh you won’t be a woman anymore.” She was betrothed so the mother said “He won’t want to marry you anymore.”
It is hugely traumatic to lose your breasts. Before I had my nipples reconstructed I hated the sight of them. They just put on a disc of skin, flesh coloured and flat so you have no nipple. Sally was in the bed next to me and she showed the women the outcome of her surgery. That’s when we decided to set up the Bosom Buddies Trust so women who have had the same experiences can support each other. We made a calendar of women who have had mastectomies and I’m so proud of it for what it stands for. It proves that it’s not just me and that when you have to face something hard there’s no point thinking how difficult it is.
I had my implants changed and I like my breasts now, they’re obviously not normal but put it this way, I had had three children and breastfed them all so my original breasts weren’t that great. It’s a little bit embarrassing that they are always perky and I’m thinking about what it’s going to be like when I’m 70, an old lady with such perky boobs. I hope I get there though.

Sketch comedy

I sometimes wonder why politicians feel such a strong desire to enter public life when they are so obviously exposing themselves to mockery, if not outright derogatory ridicule. On that note, Sheila Gunn ex-Major press secretary and Times politico set my UK Politics class the task of writing a sketch about party political broadcasts. The 5-minute wonders were rife with horrific haircuts and empty promises. I've posted my effort below.

Has anybody ever voted for a political party as a result of the 5 minute broadcast before Coronation Street? The people that have must be a strange breed – gleaning crucial conviction from the motion of Tony Benn’s chair-swivel and dashing yet earnest look into camera or the sight of Glenda Jackson in her potting shed.
Although the output of party political broadcasts has become distinctly more polished in the fifty-odd years since the first one was aired, the tone is yet to evolve. The message is simple and efficient: we are the best, therefore you must vote for us.
It would be silly to alter such a foolproof formula. The methods of delivery have, however, shown imaginative variety. In 1953 Macmillan was practically flirting with Sir Hartley Shawcross as he described his many positive qualities to eager viewers.
The Liberals were on equally shaky ground when they filmed a variation of Question Time in front of a politically diverse audience with horrendous haircuts. Jimmy Saville’s white bobbed barnet did little to distract viewers from an audience member who later became a prominent Tory.
It is yet to be determined whether the image of Shirley Williams filling shopping baskets with even more baked goods under Labour’s proposed economics improvements delayed the obesity crisis by a good few decades.
Using two wicker baskets Williams showed how much more food you could buy for your money under their proposed changes. If Tessa Jowell did such a thing today Jamie Oliver would be beating a path to her door before she could say “bakewell tart.”
That kind of message looks positively subtle when compared to the Tories anti-Callaghan broadcast in the mid-70s. The repeated boom of “Crisis? What crisis?” over images of strikers and unburied bodies probably gleaned votes in the vain hope the incessant drone would stop.
An early Thatcher video had an equally deafening message: talents are going to waste under Labour. One talent that certainly was not going to waste was that of her hairdresser: Maggie’s bouffant style had never looked so perfectly coiffed. She may have won the election with negative messages but she sent out positive vibes for all those contemplating pussy-bow blouses that season.
Labour’s 1981 video of “Neil Kinnock: the man behind the firebrand” gave discerning viewers a scintillating glimpse into the future. His black and white family photos and the emotional video testimonies from an aged aunt were the first step towards Tony Blair’s open neck collars and gruesome public displays of affection with Cherie.
In 1991 Major saw the genius of the personal touch and a broadcast showed him going back to his roots in Brixton, exchanging pleasantries with a market trader. But this genius was nothing compared to the unsung innovation of the Natural Law Party.
In 1992 they saw the truth that had eluded everybody else. In their short but effective video they shared with the nation their conviction that transcendental meditation and yogic flying were the key to reducing stress in society and making the nation strong.
They even had convincing data to back up their story: a group of yogic fliers had reduced the crime rate in Merseyside by 60 per cent. How? Nobody knows. Shockingly, the party didn’t see the success they were hoping for on polling day.
It just goes to show that people probably don’t vote on the basis of a party political broadcast. If they did, maybe we would be transcendentally meditating our way through rush hour instead of kicking fellow commuters on the sly and using our umbrellas as deadly weapons.

Stepping out

As a journalism Masters student I am constantly overwhelmed by the pressure on my colleagues and me to get work experience. Not just any work experience but great work experience on great papers that will then send our blossoming careers off into the media stratosphere. As the next vacation looms ever closer and the top nationals start slamming their doors, the prospect seems all the more bleak. This is therefore perhaps an odd time to start blogging, when the pressure to pick up the phone and fire off another CV seems particularly pressing.
Instead I am musing on the industry about which I hope to enter, an industry which seems so intent on eating it's young. I saw Nick Davies speak about his book Flat Earth News last week but instead of resigning myself to Davies' brand of inevitable doom, his talk made me more optimistic about the future and power of the press.
Now is a hugely exciting time to be a journalist, never have more mediums been available in which to communicate, never has the industry been so competitive and well observed. The fight for the best story in the shortest time may force more ruthless journalists to employ lower ethical standards but I will not be drinking Davies' Kool-Aid just yet.
The media is the modern marketplace and I'm still buying.