I ought to be slightly clearer than I was in yesterday's "mea culpa" on Karen Matthews about exactly what it was I was apologising about, especially as two other bloggers I more than respect suggest I shouldn't have at all. I was not saying sorry for alleging snobbery; I think that claim still more than stands up for why there was far less coverage than that given to the Madeleine McCann case, although the factors of the difference in looks between Madeleine and Shannon and Kate and Karen were also a factor, as was that this was happening on a Yorkshire housing estate and not in sunny Praia da Luz in Portugal.
Rather, I was admitting I got it wrong directly by criticising Allison Pearson's original piece on the Matthews, especially her concluding paragraph:
But like too many of today's kids, Shannon Matthews was already a victim of a chaotic domestic situation, inflicted by parents on their innocent children, long before she vanished into the chill February night.
That seems more than accurate now. As noted at the time however, Pearson's hypocrisy was abject considering her repeated defences of the McCanns, and far more offensive was that Pearson, without any idea whatsoever about what had actually happened, was kicking a mother while she was down, with nothing to suggest that what had happened to Shannon was anything to do with her or her family at large. As it turns out, she might well have not been down at all; but her tearful appearances were, as Pearson herself writes today, incredibly convincing.
Pearson however has got the wrong end of the stick entirely here though:
After Shannon went missing, those of us who dared to question the family's way of life were pilloried. Apparently, we were middle-class snobs looking down on a poor, working-class world. Who were we to judge Karen with her seven kids from five different fathers?
That's not what I was arguing at all, although others might well have done. You can judge Matthews' lifestyle all you like, but if you must do it, do it after the girl had at least been found, either alive or dead. Pearson's original attack was humbug of the highest order, jumping to conclusions and making allegations which she could not possibly back up, purely on the back of Matthews' past sex-life and the children that had came with it. There's nothing more unpleasant that attacking someone while they're under such apparent pain, and Pearson herself had vigorously attacked those that had done the same with the McCanns.
Pearson continues:
Yet the more we learned about Shannon's family, the more the tangled roots of the little girl's unhappiness were cruelly exposed.
No one is supposed to be "judgmental" any more. But isn't it the failure to be judgmental that has created the chaotic world where a nine-year-old can (allegedly) be taken by the child-abusing uncle of her mum's toyboy? An uncle, by the way, with whom the mum herself is alleged to be having an affair. I know it's hard, madam, but do try to keep up at the back!
But again, Pearson hasn't got the faintest idea whether these allegations are true or not. I can't recall reading anything that suggested that the uncle was a child-abuser, although his reasons for snatching a girl would suggest that, if we're still meant to think that this was a snatching and not an elaborate scam, and the same goes for the way she's now suggesting that the uncle of Matthews' current lover was having an affair with her all along, something she cannot possibly prove and that which would affect the subsequent trial in any case. All this speculation and finger-pointing is doubtless the exact reason why the police have asked those on the Dewsbury estate not to take the law into their own hands, especially when they haven't got a clue of the actual facts themselves with all the rumours swirling around. If you're going to be judgemental, then at least have all the details laid out before you; if Pearson was going to do that however, she'd never get a column written at all. Part of this is churnalism, but part of it is also simply that the whole point of tabloid columnists is to be opinionated without necessarily having the slightest actual information to be able to back up why they have that view.
The same mentality is behind the current grasping of Shameless as the template for the entire estate on which the Matthews lived. The churnalism behind this is covered by the Churner Prize, a new blog that seems to be more than worth watching, but it's also because everything has now suddenly flipped in the media's mind. They weren't keen on the estate or the Matthews to begin with, but now they feel they've been taken for a ride, and the public themselves will feel the same, so they're justified in throwing around the epithets, no matter how potentially insulting or untrue. The Scum runs with this for example, and uses the example of a man saying the police found pornography in his house and that everyone has it as evidence of moral deprivation. That if he had copies of the Sun he'd have soft pornography in it as well doesn't seem worth mentioning. I've can't say I've ever watched a full episode of Shameless, but have caught glimpses, so someone can correct me if they need to, but if the show does at times feature the community itself coming together in times of need then that's been reflected in reality without the media bothering to draw that conclusion. The estate was completely behind the family and united in such a way that might not have previously been achieved, going out of their way to search and help in any way they could, ready to hold a party to welcome Shannon back, one which has sadly not been held. That however might be to give the impression that the under/working class aren't revolting, and we couldn't possibly have that.
I'm not afraid to admit however that I did get it wrong. A mother seems to have abandoned her child for whatever reason, and her family life was by no means above reproach. I should perhaps have moderated my view slightly by admitting the possibility of the truth of what Pearson wrote. This doesn't change one iota however the fact that Pearson is a snobbish cunt of the highest order, as proved by her diatribe against Fiona MacKeown, simply for not having the same standards as the high and mighty little Miss Perfect Middle Class Pearson. If there's one thing I do know, it's that I'd rather be wrong and mistaken than a despicable, sniping, unbearably cruel bitch.Labels: abuses by tabloids, Allison Pearson, apologies, churnalism, Karen Matthews, mea culpas, Shameless, Shannon Matthews, Tabloid-watch
How in fuck's name did no one on the paper manage not to notice that rather than describing Karen Matthews as "pure evil", their sentence actually suggests that it's her offspring that are?
