Media Article
Submitted by: MR MARK CHRISTOPHER WATKIN
Hooligans and hacks, what's the real story?
When Right Honourable Lord Justice Taylor criticised the British press for their coverage of the Hillsborough disaster in his Final report in 1990, it was hoped that their future coverage of football hooliganism would be more responsible. However over the past decade this has hardly been the case, especially amongst the tabloid section of the press.
The 'Hillsborough disaster' as it is now infamously known occurred on the 15th April 1989 during an FA cup semi-final cup-tie between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. About fifteen minutes before the match was due to commence the ground had started to become overcrowded and increased to dangerous proportions by the time the game 'kicked off' at 3:00pm. However, the match was stopped six minutes later, because spectators were getting crushed against steel barriers.
This occurred when Liverpool supporters surged forward in unison after witnessing a shot from a player hit the crossbar. It was at this point that frantic Liverpool fans at the front of the terraces spilled on to the pitch in an attempt to avoid being suffocated. Unfortunately, ninety-five of those fans were not so lucky and crushed to death.
Taylor was in particular referring to newspaper reports which had suggested "drunken fans urinated on the police while they were pulling the dead and injured out" whilst others had "urinated on the bodies of the dead and stolen their belongings." The Sun's coverage on 19th April 1989 was probably the most irresponsible example of tabloid press reporting at that time. Its front-page headline boldly claimed: 'The Truth': "Some fans picked pockets of victims. Some fans urinated on the brave cops. Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life." It later transpired that the South Yorkshire police were responsible for supplying the publication with the material for the article. By acting upon this information and writing an article that blamed the fans, the Sun caused outrage on Merseyside. Copious amounts of the newspaper were pilfered from local stores, and burnt. Liverpudlians then embarked upon a successful crusade to have the paper banned from local newsagents. In fact, the ill feeling generated was so strong that even today many locals refuse to read it.
Since Taylor's recommendations to increase safety in British football grounds (such as the installation of CCTV cameras and introduction of all-seater stadia) violence at football matches has become a rarity, whilst attendances have significantly increased since the latter years of the 1980's. Bryan Drew the Head of Strategic and Specialist Intelligence recently claimed in a National Criminal Intelligence Service press release that the introduction of all-seater stadia has led to football matches becoming an "increasingly safe environment for law abiding fans to go to." Whilst, the Football Industry Group state in their Fact- sheet on football that "hooliganism has moved away from the football stadium to other venues where it can be better planned and developed."
If these statements are to be believed then it would appear that the amount of hooliganism at football matches has significantly decreased in the past decade as football grounds have become safer. Therefore one would assume that press coverage of football hooliganism in the domestic game would be of a minimal variety. This is certainly a view that is shared by Richard Holt, a History lecturer at Stirling University. The academic suggests in his book Sport and the British - a modern history that hooliganism no longer appears to be exaggerated by the media, claiming "that the press has tended to tone down its reporting of such incidents, in order to take away the hooligans' oxygen of publicity."
Despite this being true it hasn't stopped the British press from covering the countries international team in an alarmist, jingoistic and at times xenophobic manner! During the 1990 world cup the tabloid newspapers contrived to fool their readers by writing headlines of a somewhat misleading nature. This was evident on 31st May 1990 when the Sun reported that during the build-up to a world cup friendly in Italy, English fans had claimed there was "going to be a bloodbath-someone is going to get killed."
Whilst four days prior to this, the Mirror reported that Sardinian fans would be taking knives to their nation's match against England in anticipation of the English fans, who were "ready to cause havoc." These examples clearly illustrate how the tabloid press have predicted that hooliganism would take place between England fans and their rivals, despite any hard evidence to prove this was the case.
Aside from fooling their readers the tabloids have proceeded to report non-events of organised football hooliganism at major tournaments, even when their predictions of violence proved to be fruitless. This was particularly evident during the 1996 European championships held in England.
The tournament actually went ahead throughout the month of June with a minimal amount of trouble. In fact, the only real incidents of note concerned small quantities of English fans clashing around the country, after Germany knocked the hosts out of the competition in the semi-finals. However, the tabloid newspaper reports of the time suggested that the worst violence took place in Trafalgar Square, where fans rampaged through adjoining streets. A number of the national dailies also claimed that a Russian individual was badly attacked by a small band of English thugs who had wrongly thought him to be of German orientation.
Since at least 200,000 fans from all over Europe were expected to arrive in Britain, the police were required to mount extensive operations in preparation. However, their efforts weren't helped when the press embellished the chances of violence occurring at the football matches. The News of the World urged its readers to 'Shop a yob', and further lit the touch-paper for a moral panic by pleading with its readers, "only with your help can we start to stamp out this horror." The potential for violence was
further emphasised with the inclusion of a page-break underneath the main headline stating, "These boys don't mind getting hurt." Whilst to the right of the article there was a picture box of some items that the publication claimed could be used by the hooligans as secret weapons, under the heading, "Hidden terror of weapons."
This scare mongering was echoed in other leading tabloids, such as the Sunday Mirror, who on 2nd June reported on some ticket touts from Italy who were working in London. The article stated that the duo were actually neo-nazi terrorists that the Italian authorities wanted to interview concerning a recent bomb explosion that had resulted in the deaths of 85 people. The 'shock report' also included photographs of the wanted 'fugitives'. Whilst in order to bring some local interest to the piece, there was an additional story at the bottom of the article about an English couple killed in the 'fascist bombing'.
The above evidence indicates that over the past decade the British tabloid press have continued to scare-monger the public and sensationalise their coverage of football hooliganism, despite the latter being far less of a problem than they would have us believe. In addition, since Taylor's criticisms the tabloid newspapers have been accused of encouraging hooliganism through their xenophobic coverage of International football matches. Look closely at articles on the England team in this
section of the press over the past decade and you will notice that these newspapers attempt to construct 'team England's' identity by highlighting the differences between the '3 lions' and their opponents. However, this 'them and us' mentality has often had the effect of heightening the rivalry between the two. Such a reinforcement of national pride was especially evident during Euro96', when the tabloids constantly used stereotypes in their articles to describe other nations' teams.
For example, on the morning of the game against Holland (June 18th) the Daily Mirror urged England to "Give them Edam good thrashing" and added later in the piece, "Pull out the tulips and throw out your cheese and clogs." It then proceeded to beg the team not to "go near any windmills." The Sun's review of the game (that England went on to win 4-1) was sprinkled with stereotypical clichés, such as "Holland wilted like their famous tulips in the heat of an English onslaught that stirred up all those marvellous memories of 1966 and all that."
This style of language was clearly adopted in order to get the nation behind the England team. Therefore by emphasising everything that was good about the '3 lions' (such as noting their achievements in 1966 and criticising the Dutch through the use of stereotypical clichés) it becomes clear that the Sun attempted to persuade the public to get behind their national side. Whilst such reporting could be considered harmless fun, the tabloid press have at times crossed the fine line between jingoism and xenophobia.
However, when England was pitted against Germany in the semi- finals the tabloids crossed that line with some of the most irresponsible coverage since the Hillsborough disaster. The Sun ran a story on 24th June urging the national side to "Blitz Fritz." Whilst not to be outdone the Mirror's front page featured the headline, "ACHTUNG! SURRENDER." It also contained some pictures alongside the text that featured England team- mates Paul Gascoigne and Stuart Pearce in authentic Second
World War soldier's helmets.
As if this article wasn't offensive enough, the tabloid continued in the same vein with its continuous use of war analogy on pages 2- 3 of the same day's publication. This time it exclaimed, "There is a strange smell in Berlin and it's not just their funny sausages, it's the smell of fear." The double page spread also contained photographs with patronising headings including "Zey Don't Like it up zem", in reference to the hit sitcom of the 1970's Dad's Army. However, the Mirror's xenophobic, war imagery became even more apparent when its editor wrote on page six of the same edition, "I am writing to you from the Editor's office at Canary Wharf, London. Last night the Daily Mirror's ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note stating that, unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock, a state of soccer war would exist between us."
As it transpired, the amount of criticism that this form of xenophobic reporting received was in-depth and vociferous to say the least! The majority of other leading national dailies deemed the Mirror's coverage to be exceeding the boundaries of good taste. For instance, on 25th June the Daily Mail ran a story condemning its rival's articles, claiming, "England deserves better than this orgy of jingoism." In turn, the Press Complaints Commission was inundated with complaints from the British public, whilst the National Heritage Select Committee condemned tabloid newspapers in a report they issued shortly after the championships had finished, claiming such publications were guilty of, "Xenophobic, chauvinistic and jingoistic gutter journalism."
In hindsight, the tabloid newspapers certainly didn't help the plight of hooliganism in the Euro 96' championships. They attempted to convince their readers that the England team could win the tournament by using nationalistic and xenophobic rhetoric in their articles and match reports. Thus some of the resultant violence by fans after the national side were eliminated from the tournament could be attributed to this section of the press. Admittedly their coverage of tournaments since Euro 96' hasn't been anywhere near as irresponsible.
However, this has probably got something to do with Lord Wakeham's unprecedented intervention a few months before the 1998 World cup in France when he issued a statement to all British newspaper editors, urging them not to print "such undesirable headlines' as those of two years earlier." At the time of his comments, a dispute regarding the shortage of tickets for the tournament had led the Daily Star to write an article which claimed, "French history is littered with acts of plunder, greed and cowardice. The way they have grabbed the lion's share of the tickets is typical of their slimy continental ways. They need a good kick up their Gallic derrières."
Although the PCC did not punish the publication following numerous complaints made by the public, Wakeham still warned the press that he didn't want them "inadvertently or in any other way inciting fans to violence and to cause trouble." The editor of the Sun heeded Mr Wakeham's warning by guaranteeing his readers that the publication's coverage of the impending tournament would contain 'jingoism' but not 'xenophobia.' Whilst the tabloid press coverage of the championships was not
xenophobic in content some papers were nevertheless highly jingoistic. This was evident when England was due to play Argentina in the second round of the tournament on 30th June.
The Mirror's back page of that morning claimed, "8pm Tonight: PAY BACK TIME- At Last! England's Chance to Avenge the Hand of God." Beneath the headline was a piece from Falklands hero Simon Weston who urged that the England supporters should not look at the match as an extension of the Falklands war. Bearing this in mind it would appear that this latter piece was a deliberate ploy by the tabloid to pacify some of its reader's emotions, when in fact such coverage was more
likely to cause it. Therefore notwithstanding the criticism levelled by Taylor, the National Heritage Committee and the PCC down the years, the British tabloid press have, and will continue to be, jingoistic and xenophobic in their coverage of international matches, as long as they are a self-regulatory body. So, with the World cup finals of Japan and South Korea only a few months away it remains to be seen whether this section of the press will cover the event in a less subjective, sensationalist and jingoistic manner. One things for sure, if their circulation figures are dropping then they might well consider going back to their old ways!
