How Were Page 3 Girls Presented in the Media during the 1980s? By Abigail Roberts

The 1960s witnessed significant changes in society and a wealth of ‘permissive’ legislation. However, historians have contested the concept of the ‘permissive society’ to argue that not all of Britain experienced the effects of ‘permissiveness’ at the same time.[1] During the 1960s, the lived experience of the permissive society was limited during to the central hub of permissiveness, London. Other areas of Britain had yet to witness such changes, with the Midlands particularly remaining conservative when it came to attitudes to sex. However, in the 1970s, popular culture and the media across Britain became increasingly sexualised. This essay will analyse ATV and Central TV footage from the Media Archive for Central England (henceforth MACE). It will argue that the media exploited the idea of permissiveness, forging a general attitude that accepted the idea of the ‘Page 3 girl’, promoted by the producers of ATV and Central in the 1980s and how ‘Page 3’ when criticised was defended on the grounds of a ‘permissive society’.

The range of material on topless modelling and Page 3 available in MACE illustrates that such topics must have been popular with ATV and Central producers as well as audiences. The emergence of the Page 3 girl can be placed in the 1960s, as Rebecca Loncraine states that Page 3 had its origins during the 1960s permissive society.[2] The permissive society allowed for the development of female pin-up culture. However, its origins can be examined as part of a long tradition of newspaper pin-up features.[3] Furthermore, Adrian Bingham argues that Page 3 was an evolution from previous practice rather than a ‘revolutionary new development’.[4] This shows how sex throughout the twentieth century had long been a key selling point for newspapers. The 1960s, however, offered a valuable alibi and justification to the editors to defend Page 3 as the period witnessed an apparent ubiquity of toplessness in British culture.[5] Bingham shows how the Sun consistently defended Page 3, with editors arguing that the newspaper was doing no more than responding to the changes in contemporary culture, stating that ‘the Permissive Society is a fact, not an opinion. We have reflected the fact where others have preferred to turn blind eyes’.[6] Loncraine explores how popular newspapers have always included pin-ups, but the Sun exploited the 1960s fashion for public nudity and fused it with an older tradition of popular newspaper female pin-ups, the pictures of ‘pretty girls’ that was pioneered by the Daily Mirror in the 1940s.[7] The Page 3 girl became a regular feature in the Sun from 1970 as its introduction had resulted in an increased circulation. It was heavily publicised in this period, so much so that it became a central part of the paper’s appeal and a ‘defining symbol of British popular journalism’.[8] The breadth of coverage of Page 3 in ATV and Central programming could therefore be seen as an attempt to capitalise on the popularity of sex in the media. Thus, the idea of the ‘permissive’ society was exploited.

Albert ‘Larry’ Lamb, the editor of The Sun who introduced the ‘Page 3 Girl’.

Although ‘provocative’ and ‘suggestive’ stories had been featured in the newspapers since the 1940s, television news reporting tended to avoid ‘sexually explicit’ content and imagery until the 1980s. Jonathan Bignell’s study illustrates that during the 1980s there was an increase in the number of programmes related to sex and sexuality, partly due to the introduction of Channel 4 in 1982.[9] The 1980 Broadcasting Act presented the statutory public service remit which required Channel 4 to be ‘innovative, distinctive, stimulate public debate on contemporary issues, reflect the cultural diversity of the UK, champion alternative points of view and inspire change in people’s lives’.[10] One of the ways Channel 4 did this was by broadcasting increasingly sexual programmes. This commitment to public service and cultural programmes meant that Channel 4 could promote these ‘sexual’ programmes as cultural whilst remaining safely within the realms of ‘respectability’ and ‘acceptability’. Simon Cottle demonstrates that the 1980s was a period that witnessed technological advance, political deregulation and ‘increased competitive and commercial pressures’.[11] Thus, ATV and Central’s preoccupation with Page 3 and topless models seems to be a result of competition with Channel 4. However, the 1981 Broadcasting Bill illustrates the nature of Channel 4 and its relationship with ITV (that operates all regional television), stating that the channels had to ‘maintain a proper balance and wide range in their subject matter’.[12] Furthermore, Cottle explains how ATV and Central incorporated the mission to report major events and happenings in line with generalized news values in the pursuit of ‘respectable news effort’, yet also sought to work with the ‘entertainers’ predisposition for “populist appeal”’.[13] This involved deliberate measures that sought to engage viewers by purposefully ‘fashioning stories in such way as to heighten their human-interest appeal’.[14] Hence, regional programming attempted during the period to appeal directly to the experiences, interests and emotional sentiments of its imagined audience.[15] Moreover, Cottle illustrates that ATV and Central news programmes were to ‘reflect what is happening in the region, likewise, it is dominated by the region’, with the Midlands region being predominantly of a working-class population.[16] Although ATV and Central did not present their programmes on topless modelling as cultural, they did present them as both ‘acceptable’ stories that appealed to the experiences of the audiences, predominantly a working-class audience in the Midlands.

The style in which the subject of topless modelling and Page 3 was broadcast by ATV and Central highlights an openness in presenting sex in the media by sexualising the female body. Many of the news broadcasts in MACE include samples of the Sun’s Page 3 images or interviews with young aspiring models, some of whom are topless. Thus, the model’s sexualised body becomes central to the interviews. Deborah Cameron argues that public debates, whether or not they be on television, about the representation of gender in popular media have tended to focus on images more than words, and especially images of the female body that are presented as a sexual spectacle.[17] The Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood, Clare Short, drew on the images of Page 3 in a speech she made in the House of Commons in 1986 to state that they ‘portray women as objects of lust to be sniggered over and grabbed at, and do not portray sex as something that is tender and private’.[18] Certainly, Page 3 girls were presented and described in the media as food – ‘luscious Linda Lusardi, ‘dishy Helen Steed’, ‘scrumptious Sandra Jane’, ‘tasty Tracey Elvik’ – thus showing how these women were presented as objects.[19] By broadcasting such images to a wide audience, producers were illustrating their attitudes towards this notion of female toplessness and women as objects of desire. Furthermore, by presenting these images on television, producers were further exploiting the images to present a permissive society, a society which finds these images to a degree as ‘acceptable’. However, it could also be said that by ‘sensationalising’ topless models, producers, especially on Central Weekend, were pushing the topic as a ‘contemporary issue’, playing on the question of what images are private or public. Loncraine demonstrates that Page 3 during this period participated in wider debates about the nature of obscenity, about what was ‘acceptable’ to show in public and in defining what was in fact ‘public’.[20]

Vox pop footage provides us with an insight into the reactions of the general public. This element of gaining public opinion on the streets captured the reactions of both the middle and working classes on the ‘issue’ of Page 3. In a vox pop feature aired on Central Weekend in 1986, there is a lack of a dissenting voice; it is virtually absent. The tone in which this vox pop is presented highlights how Page 3 was viewed as ‘harmless fun’, as playful music is played in the background suggesting that none of the producers took the issue seriously. This is agreed upon when a model suggests that ‘I think you have to look at Page 3 with a sense of humour’.[21] Three working men when asked what they think about Page 3 and whether they found it offensive reply ‘can’t complain about that’ when showed an image of a Page 3 model.[22] It appears that the dissenting voice is pushed aside to some degree. However, some men and women interviews object to Page 3 being in the media, with two men stating, ‘I don’t think it should be in the newspapers’, going as far as to say that ‘I think it trivialises it’.[23] This shows, however, how consideration needs to be taken over how the voices of vox pops are more than likely to have been carefully selected to represent the attitudes of the producers of Central and not the entirety of the Midlands.

The footage from MACE reveals how class played a significant role in shaping attitudes towards pin-ups and Page 3 during the period. Teresa Stratford highlights how ‘class is central to the Page 3 issue’.[24] Furthermore, she states that, during the period,

Middle-class people tend not to read the Sun. Middle-class girls tend not to dream about appearing on Page 3. They have no need; most of them have job prospects which promise more interest, more respect and a long career elsewhere. It is no accident that most Page 3 Girls came from working-class homes.[25]

Notions of class are not, at first, evident in the MACE footage. However, close analysis demonstrates that Stratford’s argument can be applied to the evidence in the archival footage. Jill Neville, a young woman who appears in the Central News item ‘Young Model’, appears to have had a hard time convincing her parents that her job was ‘acceptable’.[26] Many found topless modelling ‘acceptable’ if it was presented in a certain way in the media. Neville’s father was accepting of Jill’s choice of career, ‘providing it’s done in good taste’.[27] Another Central Weekend debate in 1986 that discussed the issue of pornography sees another gentleman state, ‘I don’t see anything wrong with girls posing in Page 3. In the Sun that is done tastefully.’[28] This demonstrates editor Larry Lamb’s aim to display sex in the newspapers not in the form of pornography, but in the form of ‘tastefully posed’, ‘ordinary women’.[29] Certainly, sex could be displayed in the period. However, it had to be presented under the disguise of ‘good taste’ and as presenting the experiences of ‘ordinary women’. In the Sun and the ATV and Central footage, the majority of topless models are presented as aspirational working-class figures: attractive women who had been ‘liberated’ by glorying in their sensuality.[30] This is agreed upon by Bingham and Conboy, who state that these models were ‘aspirational figures’, and that the media exploited this image to emphasise how many young women sought to be topless models.[31]

Samantha Fox begins her career as a Page 3 model (image from the Huffington Post)

A Central News East report demonstrates how young models wanted to follow in the footsteps of one of the biggest Page 3 models, Samantha Fox, stating that ‘thousands’ wanted to be a topless model.[32] This illustrates how the younger generation of women were ‘not ashamed to bear all’, highlighting how permissiveness had altered the younger generation.[33] If there was a dissenting voice, then it often came from the older generation, who had more conservative values. Parents and families of models, however, were accepting of the choice of career, as it was a career for working-class women. In an interview, Samantha Fox stated that ‘all of my family is proud of me, we all came from a working-class family, so for one of us to do well has really brightened up the family’.[34] This suggests that there was a lack of opportunities for young women during the period. One model stated that ‘it’s nice to be noticed’, suggesting society’s disregard for working-class women during the period.[35]

The reaction to Page 3 in the 1980s reveals dissent in how women were presented in the media. Bingham demonstrates that Page 3 girls and the debates surrounding them reveal much about the contemporary attitudes to women and to public sexual display.[36] Interestingly, Loncraine highlights how the Sun’s mascot of Page 3 was designed to provoke a response from various groups outside its target readership of the working class. Editors of the Sun clearly wanted a reaction from the middle-class members of society, and they got one.[37] Criticism from establishment figures on moral grounds was welcomed by editors, as it validated the Sun’s aim of being a ‘permissive’ newspaper.[38] However, what was not accepted was feminist criticism, as MP Clare Short found out in the 1986 when she took a bill to Parliament that would ban Page 3 girls from newspapers. Feminists such as Short felt that Page 3 was pornography, emphasising how it ‘institutionalises the sexual subordination of women to a mass market, cheaply and on a daily basis, and should therefore be relegated to pornographic magazines’.[39] The criticisms during the period were not grounded in ‘morality’, but in feminist arguments about women being ‘demeaned’ and ‘stereotyped’.[40] A Central Weekend debate taking place shortly after Clare Short addressed the Commons with her bill reveals how Midlands television wanted to present the attitudes of ‘ordinary’ people, Page 3 models and Clare Short towards the bill the topic of Page 3 in general. The debate draws on how women as Page 3 models were stereotyped as ‘dumb’, ‘topless’ and ‘brainless’.[41]

A protestor objecting to The Sun‘s representation of women.

As a result of these criticisms, the popular press was forced to develop a new language to defend their pin-ups.[42] Stratford shows that the women who criticised the papers for featuring Page 3 girls in contrast were called ‘boring’, ‘dowdy prudes’ and were secretly jealous that they did not possess the girls’ ‘wonderful figures’.[43] Clare Short was the main target of this abuse and was subjected to repeated insults by the tabloid press. Stratford has shown that Short’s objections to Page 3 were described as an ‘overreaction’, and that Short’s bill and the support for the bill by other feminists was treated as a ‘sign of panic’.[44] The tabloid press made many references to Short’s physical appearance, naming her ‘the buxom Ms Short’.[45] The popular press, particularly the Sun went as far as to suggest that she was not quite sane, with its ‘Crazy Clare’ campaign.

The Sun’s campaign suggests how the popular press and Midlands television portrayed the Page 3 girl as part of the ‘fabric of British culture’.[46] Stratford draws on this to illustrate that Page 3 by the 1980s appeared to be firmly entrenched in popular culture, going as far as to state that ‘it seemed an institution’.[47] This can be seen in the footage of Central Weekend, as Page 3 model Lindy states of the bill, ‘I would have thought that it’s a total waste of time. Page 3 has been running very successfully for so many years now.’[48] Moreover, other Midlands television footage demonstrates how Page 3 and topless models were viewed as an institution and a part of Britain’s permissive culture. An ATV Today report from 1976 reveals that pub stripper shows had already ‘been going on for a long time’ in the Midlands, with a father of a topless model interviewed on Central News East suggesting that topless women were the norm by stating ‘that’s life 1986, 1987, in’t it?’.[49] This illustrates how Page 3 during the 1980s was able to withstand the resurgence of the feminist movement, as the female pin-up tradition was firmly entrenched within society and the male-dominated Fleet Street, and their newspapers had enough ‘cultural power’ to deflect the criticisms of Short.[50]

To conclude, the majority of the public accepted Page 3, highlighting that to some degree society had become ‘permissive’ by the 1980s. The Central TV and ATV footage illustrates that there was some level of freedom to display sexualised images on television, suggesting that society had progressed from its conservative views and values during the 1950s and 1960s. This was in part due to the increase of sexualised imagery presented in the media. As a result, the British public became exposed to sex in their everyday lives, whether it was through newspapers or television. Yet, permissiveness did not reach the whole of society and there were still those who objected to Page 3, sexual imagery, and how women were represented in the media. The coverage of Page 3 by ATV and Central by itself cannot suggest a complete timeline of permissiveness. It does, however, demonstrate how the Midlands, particularly working-class people, perceived Page 3. Furthermore, it shows the development of the permissive society by the 1980s. Even though Page 3 faced dissenting voices from both the members of public and feminists such as Clare Short, the institution was able to withstand the backlash. This shows that by the 1980s Page 3 had become so firmly entrenched within society, it had become part of the ‘British way of life’.

 

Notes:

[1] See Dominic Sandbrook, White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties (London, 2006) and Arthur Marwick, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, c. 1959-1974 (Oxford, 1999).

[2] Rebecca Loncraine, ‘Bosom of the Nation: Page Three in the 1970s and 1980s’, in Mina Gorji (ed.), Rude Britannia (London, 2007), 96-111 (96).

[3] Adrian Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture and Page 3 in the Popular Press’, in Maggie Andrews and Sallie McNamara (eds.), Women and the Media: Feminism and Femininity in Britain, 1900 to the Present (New York, 2014), 184-198 (185).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Adrian Bingham, Family Newspapers? Sex, Private Life and the British Popular Press 1918-1978 (Oxford, 2009), 222.

[7] Loncraine, ‘Bosom of the Nation’, 97.

[8] Bingham, Family Newspapers, 202.

[9] Jonathan Bignell, An Introduction to Television Studies (London, 2004), 239.

[10] ‘What is Channel 4?’ [online source] https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/who-we-are/what-is-channel-4 accessed on 3 May 2018.

[11] Simon Cottle, TV News, Urban Conflict and the Inner City (London, 1993), 38.

[12] ‘Broadcasting Act 1981’, 1981 [online source] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/68/pdfs/ukpga_19810068_en.pdf, accessed on 3 May 2018.

[13] Cottle, TV News, 64.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 65.

[16] Ibid., 67.

[17] Deborah Cameron, On Language and Sexual Politics (London, 2006), 29.

[18] Clare Short, Commons Sitting, 12 March 1986, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 93 (1986), c. 937-940.

[19] Teresa Stratford, ‘Page 3- Dream or Nightmare?’, in Kath Davies, Julienne Dickey and Teresa Stratford (eds.), Out of Focus: Writings on Women and the Media (London, 1987), 57-62 (60).

[20] Loncraine, ‘Bosom of the Nation’, 96.

[21] Central Weekend [Programme 11], ‘Page 3 Debate’ (ITV, 18/4/1986), Media Archive for Central England (hereafter MACE), University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/240812056 (log-in required).

[22] Central Weekend, ‘Page 3 Debate’.

[23] Central Weekend, ‘Page 3 Debate’.

[24] Teresa Stratford, ‘Women and the Press’, in Andrew Belsey and Ruth Chadwick (eds.), Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media (London, 1992), 130-136 (131).

[25] Ibid., 131.

[26] Central News East, ‘Young Model’ (ITV, 17/11/1986), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/152979170 (log-in required).

[27] Ibid.

[28] Central Weekend [Programme 18], ‘Pornography Industry Debate’ (ITV, 20/6/1986), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/236076287 (log-in required).

[29] Patricia Holland, ‘The Politics of the Smile: “Soft News” and the Sexualisation of the Popular Press’, in Cynthia Carter, Gill Branston and Stuart Allan (eds.), News, Gender and Power (London, 1998), 17-33 (23).

[30] Bingham, ‘Pin Up Culture’, 193.

[31] Adrian Bingham and Martin Conboy, Tabloid Century: The Popular Press in Britain, 1896 to the present (Oxford, 2015), 158.

[32] Central News East, ‘Penthouse Roadshow’ (ITV, 9/5/1986), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/153085506 (log-in required).

[33] Central News East, ‘Penthouse Roadshow’.

[34] ‘The Story of Page 3 Girls’ (1985), YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aT5HUzz06k.

[35] Central News East, ‘Penthouse Roadshow’.

[36] Bingham, Family Newspapers, 203.

[37] Loncraine, ‘Bosom of the Nation’, 104.

[38] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 194.

[39] Clare Short, Dear Clare… This Is What Women Feel about Page 3 (London, 1991), 43.

[40] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 186.

[41] Central Weekend, ‘Page 3 Debate’.

[42] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 186.

[43] Stratford, ‘Women and the Press’, 131.

[44] Ibid, 132.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 184.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Central Weekend, ‘Page 3 Debate’, https://vimeo.com/240812056 (log-in required).

[49] ATV Today, ‘Lunchtime Strippers’ (ITV, 11/2/1976), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/153086574 (log-in required); Central News East, ‘Young Model’.

[50] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 195.

How did Margaret Thatcher use the Media? By Georgina Ward

1980s regional coverage approached Thatcher through a deliberately comedic style. Aspects of gender and humour were central components to Thatcher-centric programmes, and Thatcher’s image can be seen not only as a construct intended for a mass cultural mainstream but was considerably driven by popular discontent. 1983’s Central Lobby opens with Tony Francis in the studio examining various Margaret Thatcher commemorative pieces.^[1]

https://vimeo.com/117167508

His mocking manner instantly suggests regional programmes operated on an alternative, more familiar level. Nothing is explicit even in later questioning of a clear anti-Thatcherite, so the programme maintains professionalism whilst still provoking a potentially ironic reading for a media literate audience. This is seen again when another programme ends with its reporter remembering his first interview with Thatcher and she is seen walking straight past, ignoring his question.^[2] This framing is introduced as shared humour, in turn suggesting confidence in Thatcher’s decrease in popularity (or at the very least viewer awareness of how controversial a figure she was) for the programme to endorse the subjective position. It also suggests that factual regional programmes were unafraid to place comedy over ideology in order to connect with and represent their audiences.

Gavin Schaffer has considered the significance of the comic form. He suggests that while the ‘culture dimension’ was considered an emerging space for the opposition to send a political message, the ‘mileage gained by Thatcher and her government from jokes that were designed to undermine them’ indicated the unreliability of comedy as a political weapon.[3] This is reflected in the way Thatcher’s gender was targeted by British comedy. Central pitting Thatcher against a female journalist suggests not only the traction and current-ness of women’s issues but that there was production interest in capturing a contrast between the interviewer – a seemingly ordinary, well-spoken woman – and the ‘Iron Lady.’^[4]  ATV Today 1980 shows consecutive clips of Thatcher refusing help from men on visits (either digging or getting into a cockpit), firmly shaking hands, standing within an all-male crowd, and speaking particularly severely with some amusingly disinterested children on a school visit.^[5]

https://vimeo.com/117173900

These selected clips put together within a montage format particularly accentuates her aggressiveness; done through visual style techniques rather than substance allows a perspective to be projected without any of distractions of context. This shows the intent to broadcast a harsher, ‘masculine’ image for Thatcher.

Historians have grappled with how to classify Thatcher’s gender identity. As Britain’s first woman Prime Minster, Thatcher ‘became a conspicuous figure in the world of sexual politics’^[6] and gender therefore became central to how she was seen and understood. ‘Thatcherism,’ Toye states, was ‘also taken to include her militant, aggressive and authoritarian bearing,’ but that debate has considered how far she exploited her status as a ‘political outsider’ as part of her media image.^[7] In John Campbell’s view, the ‘way that Thatcher used her lower-middle-class origins to underline her position as an outsider amid the Tory Party’s upper-class aristocratic majority was rather exaggerated,’ however Hugo Young regards Thatcher’s aggressive leadership style as a way of ‘disguising her insecurity due to her social background and sex.’^[8] Toye considers her to have been an ‘expert gender bender’; that despite not ‘openly cite[ing] her gender as a determining factor in the political game, [it] did not mean she did not exploit her status as a woman,’ confounding her colleagues through iron-ladylike behaviour which she could then switch to a more charming female role.^[9]

Of course, ATV was only utilizing footage of Thatcher, and it can equally be said that the former prime minister was deliberately demonstrating a ‘masculine’ command towards and of the camera by acting with independence and authority in given situations. Thatcher’s own awareness of the media can therefore be seen through her active projection an authoritative ‘masculine’ image in order to compensate for any perceived ‘weakness.’ Thatcher stated that she refused to be defined by gender, however her frequent use of gendered language during press conferences and televised speeches including use of the derogatory ‘wet’ indicate a desire (however manipulated) to set herself above from her male colleagues and, working within eighties sexist politics, maintain control through this unpredictability of gender and gender deviance. Consequently, the media, in attempting to dovetail Thatcher into an ‘understandable’ category, reinforced this stereotype of her masculinity. Political cartoons capture this anxiety; popular cartoonist Gerald Scarfe perpetuated an image of Thatcher as a cutting, scythe-like figure.[10] It can be seen that, even though Thatcher was trying to change her image to suit a male environment, she is still mocked for it by the same male industry; for example, caricatured as ‘top bitch’ at Crufts.[11] In constructing an unfeminine image for Thatcher, it can be argued that on some level the media was doing exactly what Thatcher wanted.

Cartoon depictions frequently called upon her gender to formulate humour.[12] Further assaults on her gender are most visible in Central Television’s puppet-based satirical sketch show Spitting Image, where she was often portrayed as dictatorial amongst other defeminising stereotypes. McSmith argued that the programme, especially with its focus on Thatcher and her cabinet, ‘attacked Britain’s political leaders “with a venom that had never been seen before on television,”[13] leading to the Independent Broadcasting Authority receiving numerous complaints, with ‘one viewer typically claiming that Spitting Image was “a determined socialist attempt to undermine normal standards of patriotism and decency.”[14] However, Schaffer states that, far from damaging Mrs Thatcher, the construction appeared to make her even more popular, again, ‘fuelling her reputation for toughness’ and, as Richard Vinen states, ‘helping to define Thatcherism in the public eye.’[15]

Encouraging gendered stereotypes, Thatcher managed to her benefit from a media-constructed image. Webster, however, counters that far from being in control of her own image, Thatcher’s presentation and performance was ultimately manipulated and re-invented by men and the male media industry.[16] Sexist material was understood as a ‘continuation of ‘mainstream success,’ popular with the ordinary Briton who saw it as a tradition, and therefore this environment created its own problems. For example, Thatcher’s popularity can be tracked across the archive, and 1979 vox pops show general optimism towards her owing to her limited time in power but mainly the repeated assumption that, being a woman, she would naturally understand and champion women’s issues.^[17]

https://vimeo.com/118017422

During her 1979 campaign, the Conservatives produced an election poster with a blatant appeal to women, associating the party with Mrs Pankhurst and giving women the vote, the first women to sit in Parliament being a Conservative and now the Conservatives having elected the first women party leader: ‘It only leaves one thing for a women to do. Vote Conservative.’^[18] This would not be a continued affair. As Thatcher said in a press conference she ‘like[d] people who have ability, who don’t run the feminist ticket too hard, after all I reckon if you get anywhere it’s because of your ability as a person. It’s not because of your sex.’^[19] However, the 1980s opinion polling on gender and party preference by MORI (Market & Opinion Research International) revealed that women were ‘more likely to vote Conservative because of personal support for Margaret Thatcher,’ more likely to share her economic worldview, her importance accorded to education and education policies.^[20] Jackson states that ‘while feminists viewed Thatcher as an enemy of women’s liberation, on average women voters were less likely to view Thatcher as anti-feminist.’^[21] Archival vox pops therefore support the data that a significant percentage of women in the 1980s both ‘admired and agreed with Margaret Thatcher,’^[22] and indicate how much gender was a motivational factor in voting. Thatcher’s image and attitude therefore needed to be appealing to the female electorate as much as the male side of the population.

This is reflected later in 1986 in an interview for Central Lobby, which happens to demonstrate Thatcher’s detachment towards feminist issues.^[23]

https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/117254249

Significantly, she makes no attempt to suggest, when questioned about dental capping or having changed the shrillness of her voice, that this was done specifically because of her gender, however, it is clear that she Thatcher did have something of a women’s agenda. In frequently using media traditionally seen as outside the purview of politics, such as Cosmopolitan or Women’s Own, or mid-morning radio programmes (consumed primarily by housewives)^[24], she can be seen not only to be targeting women but promoting domesticity and her own inclusion within that feminine role. Thatcher explicitly stated her ‘appreciation of the central role of women’s magazines in politics at a speech to a group of magazine editors,’ saying that ‘We always read, every week in my home Woman’s Weekly and I must tell you that it upheld excellent standards.’^[25] Jon Lawrence and Florence Sutcliffe-Braithwaite argue that this rhetoric of the family and appeal to gender solidarity was emphasised by Thatcher in order to ‘counter Labour’s appeals to broader class or social solidarity,’^[26] and in crafting an ‘acceptable’ image as a female role model, these sentiments demonstrate an attempt to express rather than reject traditional femininity.

Thatcher can be considered alongside Princess Diana in this respect. Despite many differences between them, both eighties icons were in the unusual position of being very publically visible in a conventionally masculine environment. Media attention focused on their private lives as wives and mothers, as well as on their public roles, and by traversing both the public and private spheres they visibly transgressed gender norms and expectations on a day-to-day basis. Whilst Thatcher somewhat kept her family in the background of her career, Diana’s visibility as both a wife and mother were less escapable. As a response to this, the media, contrary to Thatcher’s defeminisation, created a ‘hyper-femininity’ around Diana in order to contain her within ‘appropriate’ societal gender roles. Central News demonstrates focus on Diana’s feminine image: immediate scrutiny over what she is wearing and her attitude – evaluating whether or not, as the journalist asks, she is indeed the ‘caring princess’ – takes precedent over specifying the actual details of her charity concern.[27]

https://vimeo.com/142492531

However, Diana can arguably be perceived as a manipulator of the media through her fashion choices and profile in order to command the camera’s attention to the event, even over the visits of her husband. This tactic can be applied to Thatcher in terms of how she took control of a media image, both with direct interaction with the media (impromptu statements, grabbing the microphone[28]) and through gendered remarks during televised broadcasts, defying her male counterparts. Thatcher’s awareness of the camera and the view of public perception can be recognised; both women demonstrate some level of command over the media’s lens and reveal a battle for control between the media and their subject – whether it was Thatcher or the journalists that controlled her ‘unfeminine’ image.

Gender portrayals and language can been seen as staple subject material for news segments and broadcasts. Mass Observation reveals public perceptions beyond vox pops – often quickly compiled and carelessly answered – or MORI figures which obscure the variation of individual responses towards Thatcher; additionally, many survey participants included information regarding their media consumption. One news-watching responder to the Spring Directive 1983 stated Thatcher to be ‘very masculine in thought and deed…no different to a male prime-minister,’^[29] conveying a similar attitude to the films. Mass Observation similarly states Diana repeatedly as being ‘feminine’[30] – an ‘all-rounder’ that could ‘swim, dance, cook and talk well with children’^[31] – reflecting how the focus and language of media-communicated images were adopted by its audience and how, to some extent, media representation could influence cultural organisation. Arguably, the limits to the ‘progressiveness’ of comedic portrayals led to struggles to galvanise any truly radical opposition.[32]

Arguably, focus on ‘working-class’ comedy only offered a ‘“culture of consolation” amid the onslaught of Thatcherism and in fact acted as a ‘force of conservatism’ – ‘allowing for the release of tension [but] ultimately…preserving the status quo.’[33] Bruce Carson describes how, despite contrasting televisual representations of Thatcher and Princess Diana, both accounts emphasised the ‘centrality of the subject, the narrativisation of the material towards resolution and the privileging of the personal over political issues.’^[34] Reports also tended to focus on the centrality of emotional response (such as vox pops, children and humour) in order to attract the majority, which, as John Wallace states, also covered the regional media’s commitment to ‘establish themselves by expressing a genuine interest in the people of the Midlands,’ and their various values and interests.[35] Thatcher’s efforts to embody tropes of Britishness, such as valorising housewives,[36] deploying moralistic arguments about the decline of British society, particularly within debates over education reform,^[37] and particularly her actions surrounding the Falklands crisis indicate not just bids for support, but specific tailoring of her image for mass public consumption. Emphasising British values can be linked to fears of internationalisation; the CND anti-bomb campaign gained large followings due to the perceived threat of America’s influence, along with fears that deregulation would lead to ‘wall-to-wall Dallas,’ seen by Worpole and Herdige as eroding and undermining British culture and identity.^[38] ATV equally responded to these ‘foreign cultural objects’ by reinforcing celebrations of our ‘national culture’; the Royals and Thatcher during the Falkland’s victory were presented, particularly towards and in association with the working-classes, as positive cultural icons. Local patriotism was also depicted in news segments, with light reporting and ‘British’ comedy a ‘rallying point for resisting globalisation’ and a way of ‘recognising and placing themselves.’[39] but media focus and attitude often changed with regional support. In this way, the media’s catering to mass audience appeal superseded any political position. It is also seen how local cultures and values can be produced or encouraged through articulation of, or by means of consumption of, global forms and media. Positive international perspectives further demonstrate this portrayal: ‘at last she seems to be showing the British like we like to see them.’[40]

David Morley has analysed the structure of factual television programmes through a ‘concern with the wider field of popular programing towards the multifaceted processes of consumption and decoding in which media audiences are involved.’[41] His work tracks a series of shifts in the historiographical focus of interest from interdiscursive connections of new technologies towards concerns regarding an emphasis on gendered viewing practises within the context of the family,[42] overall suggesting that engaging with the fundamental role of the media in articulating both public and private spheres can lead to a broader, more contextualised discussion around how various information and communication technologies can function in constructing and/or reinforcing cultural identities, gender stereotypes and the social organisation of the community.[43] It therefore becomes clear how media depictions of Thatcher were intimately interconnected with not just a political campaign image, but a dimension both inside and outside of media production, heavily dependent upon viewership and the cultural climate.

Spitting Image again fed into public consciousness. Including a clip within a segment[44] not only serves to demonstrate Central’s relevance through an understanding of popular culture and perceptions surrounding Thatcher, but also highlights how important the satire was in feeding back into the creation or substantiation of such humorous perceptions through its inclusion, framed within a factual context and medium. Understanding Thatcher through more culturalist terms such as through political stereotypes can help to explain certain media choices and go some way to defining how particular presentations were defined or redefined. In addition, whilst consumption of political cartoons to some extent were limited by newspaper selection and party preference, the show Spitting Image was notoriously enjoyed by all ages and large, cross-class sections of society. In this way, Central not only taps into a nationalist as well as regional popularity but capitalises upon this mass appeal.

The ‘deregulation’ of broadcasting, with its increased reliance on advertising revenue, created arguments that it would force the medium ‘down market’ in terms of both reduced opportunities for ‘genuine viewer choice’ and the greater influence of advertisers in controlling programming for mass audiences.[45] However, Connell’s 1983 argument that ITV was ‘progressive’ in terms ‘of both its own programming and the extent to which the BBC was then forced to compete with it, ITV having a built-in drive to “connect with the structure of taste” which no public-service institution had’ contradicts this view of public-service broadcasting, in so far as the ‘“public sphere” created by such traditional broadcasting was heavily structured by class and region.’[46] In essence, ITV, in trying to fight competition and cater to the mass market, gave greater power to the ‘average viewer’ in pursuing individuals and their stories. Furthermore, the importance of the ‘authenticity’ of cultural products[47] and pressures for regional broadcasting to represent their regions, as opposed to national programmes, actually afforded ATV greater freedom, such as implicitly supporting particular political values or modelling their shows more like a popular newspaper. Therefore, a regional, British ‘hegemony’ of the popular and commercial rather than any dominant ideology arguably drove ATV towards making certain professional choices in terms of content and character.

Television news coverage and current affairs programming show an erosion of difference between ‘documentary objectivity and melodramatic sentiment’[48] due to production pressures to connect with whole regional communities and comedy being seen as rooted in class bonds and political values. Discourses of current affairs and popular comedic personality reportage therefore played into the extent to which the media facilitated a gender stereotype for Thatcher.

 

[1] Central Lobby [Programme 015] ‘Extract’, 10 February 1983, Media Archive for Central England, University of Lincoln (hereafter MACE) https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/117167508

[2] Central News East, ‘Thatcher Special,’ 11 October 1985, MACE https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/118018520

[3] Gavin Schaffer, ‘Fighting Thatcher with Comedy: What to Do When There Is No Alternative,’ Journal of British Studies, Vol. 55, Issue 2, 2016, 13

[4] Central Lobby [Programme 116], 26 June 1986, MACE https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/117254249

[4] Ben Jackson, Robert Saunders, Making Thatcher’s Britain, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 346

[5] ATV Today ‘Mrs Thatcher’, 27 June 1980, MACE https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/117173900

[6] Wendy Webster, Not a Man to Match Her: Feminist View of Britain’s First Woman Prime Minister, (UK: The Women’s Press Ltd, 1990), 1

[7] Richard Toye, Julie Gottlieb, Making Reputations: Power, Persuasion and the Individual in Modern British Politics, (London: I B Taurus, 2005), 176

[8] Toye, Gottlieb, Making Reputations

[9] Ibid, 177

[10] Kristie Kinghorn, ‘Gerald Scarfe’s controversial Margaret Thatcher cartoons on show,’ BBC News, 14 March 2015, accessed 20/04/16

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-31711778

[11] Kinghorn, ‘Gerald Scarfe’s…,’ BBC News

[12] ‘Margaret Thatcher Cartoons,’ PUNCH Magazine Cartoon Archive, 2016, accessed 21/04/16 http://punch.photoshelter.com/gallery/Margaret-Thatcher-Cartoons/G0000iZrJGN2t3dg/

[13] Schaffer, ‘Fighting Thatcher with Comedy,’ 13

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid

[16] Webster, Not a Man to Match Her

[17] ATV Today, ‘Thatcher Vox Pop’, 27 July 1979, MACE https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/118017422

[18] Jackson, Saunders, Making Thatcher’s Britain, 343

[19] Margaret Thatcher, ‘General Election Press Conference (“Scottish Press Conference”)’, April 26, 1979, Margaret Thatcher Foundation, 2016, accessed 20/04/2016 http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104045

[20] Jackson, Saunders, Making Thatcher’s Britain, 333

[21] Jackson, Saunders, Making Thatcher’s Britain, 333

[22] Ibid

[23] Central Lobby [Programme 116], 26 June 1986, MACE https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/117254249

[24] Jackson, Saunders, Making Thatcher’s Britain, 346

[25] Ibid

[26] Ibid, 348

[27] Central News East, ‘Royal Visit,’ 30 May 1986, MACE https://vimeo.com/album/3610129/video/142492531

[28] Central News East, ‘Thatcher Special,’ 11 October 1985, MACE https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/118018520

[29] ‘Spring Directive General Election 1983 – G218,’ Mass Observation, Observing the 80s, accessed 21/04/16 https://docs.google.com/folderview?id=0Bz-9hs_TdzGPM056U0tVYUtPeHM&tid=0Bz-9hs_TdzGPeXpzcC1WczFjVFU

[30] ‘Responses to Special Royal Wedding 1981,’ Observing the 80s, accessed 21/04/16 https://docs.google.com/folderview?id=0Bz-9hs_TdzGPUkYzYlFMMG9Hak0

[31] ATV Today, ‘Royal Engagement,’ 24 February, 1981, MACE https://vimeo.com/album/3610129/video/144485085

[32] Schaffer, ‘Fighting Thatcher with Comedy,’ 11

[33] Ibid, 3

[34] Bruce Carson, Margaret Llewellyn-Jones, Frames and Fictions on Television: The Politics of Identity, (London: Intellect Books, 2000),

[35] John Wallace, ‘“A Sense of Region”? Independent Television in the Midlands, 1950-2000,’ Centre for Mass Communication Research, University of Leicester, Feb 2004, 303

[36] Jackson, Saunders, Making Thatcher’s Britain, 333, 341

[37] Jackson, Saunders, Making Thatcher’s Britain, 341

[38] David Morley, Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies, (London: Routledge, 1992), 219

[39] Schaffer, ‘Fighting Thatcher with Comedy,’ 23

[40] Central Lobby [Programme 015], ‘Extract,’ 10 February 1983, MACE https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/117167508

[41] Morley, Television, 1

[42] Ibid

[43] Ibid

[44] Central Lobby [Programme 116], 26 June 1986, MACE

[45] Morley, Television, 219

[46] Ibid

[47] James Curran, Jean Seaton, Power Without Responsibility: Press, Broadcasting and the Internet in Britain, (London: Routledge, 1997), 165

[48] Carson, Llewellyn-Jones, Frames and Fictions, 25

 

 

Bibliography:

ATV Today. ‘Mrs Thatcher.’ Broadcast 27 June 1980. Media Archive for Central England. University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/117173900

ATV Today. ‘Thatcher Vox Pop.’ Broadcast 27 July 1979. Media Archive for Central England. University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/118017422

Carson, Bruce. Margaret Llewellyn-Jones. Frames and Fictions on Television: The Politics of Identity. London: Intellect Books. 2000.

Central Lobby [Programme 116]. Broadcast 26 June 1986. Media Archive for Central England. University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/117254249

Central Lobby [Programme 015]. ‘Extract.’ Broadcast 10 February 1983. Media Archive for Central England. University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/117167508

Central News East. ‘Royal Visit.’ Broadcast 30 May 1986. Media Archive for Central England. University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3610129/video/142492531

Central News East. ‘Thatcher Special.’ Broadcast 11 October 1985. Media Archive for Central England. University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3218364/video/118018520

Curran, James. Jean Seaton. Power Without Responsibility: Press, Broadcasting and the Internet in Britain. London: Routledge. 1997.

Jackson, Ben. Robert Saunders. Making Thatcher’s Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2012.

Kent, Susan Kingsley. Gender and Power in Britain 1640-1990. London: Routledge. 1999.

Kinghorn, Kristie. ‘Gerald Scarfe’s controversial Margaret Thatcher cartoons on show.’ BBC News. 14 March 2015. Accessed 20/04/16. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-31711778

‘Margaret Thatcher Cartoons.’ PUNCH Magazine Cartoon Archive. 2016. Accessed 21/04/16. http://punch.photoshelter.com/gallery/Margaret-Thatcher-Cartoons/G0000iZrJGN2t3dg/

Moore, Suzanne. Head Over Heels. New York: Viking. 1996.

Morley, David. Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge. 1992.

Nunn, Heather. Thatcher, Politics and Fantasy: The Political Culture of Gender and Nation. London: Lawrence & Wishart. 2002.

Ribberink, Anneke. ‘Gender Politics with Margaret Thatcher: Vulnerability and Toughness.’ Gender Forum. Issue 30. 2010.

Robinson, Lucy. ‘“Sometimes I like to stay in and watch TV …” Kinnock’s Labour Party and Media Culture.’ Twentieth Century British History. Vol. 22. No. 3. Jan 2011.

Schaffer, Gavin. ‘Fighting Thatcher with Comedy: What to Do When There Is No Alternative.’ Journal of British Studies. Vol. 55. Issue 2. April 2016.

‘Spring Directive General Election 1983 – G218.’ Mass Observation. Observing the 80s. Accessed 21/04/16. https://docs.google.com/folderview?id=0Bz-9hs_TdzGPM056U0tVYUtPeHM&tid=0Bz-9hs_TdzGPeXpzcC1WczFjVFU

Thatcher, Margaret. ‘General Election Press Conference (“Scottish Press Conference”)’, April 26, 1979, Margaret Thatcher Foundation, 2016, Accessed 20/04/2016 http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104045

Thompson, Juliet S. Margaret Thatcher: Prime Minister Indomitable. US: Westview Press. 1994.

Toye, Richard. Julie Gottlieb. Making Reputations: Power, Persuasion and the Individual in Modern British Politics. London: I B Taurus. 2005. 177

Wallace, John. ‘“A Sense of Region”? Independent Television in the Midlands, 1950-2000.’ Centre for Mass Communication Research. University of Leicester. Feb 2004.

Webster, Wendy. Not a Man to Match Her: Feminist View of Britain’s First Woman Prime Minister. UK: The Women’s Press Ltd. 1990.

 

 

Page Three and 1980s ATV programming. By Lauren Wells

The 1960s saw an abundance of permissive legislation, however many Britons did not truly experience the effects of ‘permissive Britain.’ The lived experience of the so called ‘permissive society’ was limited and attitudes towards sex remained fairly conservative, particularly in areas outside of London. [1] So when did Britain become ‘permissive’? Popular culture has become increasingly sexualised since the 1970s and it seems likely that it was the growing presence of sex and sexually explicit content in all aspects of the media which truly created a ‘permissive Britain’[2]. In an analysis of ATV footage from the Media Archive for Central England (hereafter MACE), this essay will argue that the general attitude of acceptance towards Page Three, promoted by ATV in the 1980s, is indicative of a growth in permissiveness amongst some members of the British public in this period, or at the very least amongst those in the Midlands.

The breadth of material on topless modelling available in MACE demonstrates that such stories must have been popular with ATV producers as well as with audiences. The introduction of Page Three had already significantly increased the circulation of The Sun in the 1970s,[3] and it could be argued that ATV was attempting to capitalise on the popularity of the feature. In his discussion of the British popular press, Adrian Bingham argues that British journalism was intensely preoccupied with sex throughout the twentieth century, and sex had long been a key selling point for newspapers.[4] The wide coverage of Page Three in ATV programming could thus be seen as a continuation of this preoccupation with sex in the media as a whole, suggesting that sex was not only a popular topic in newspapers but also on television. Although risqué stories had been permeating newspapers since the interwar period, television news reporting tended to steer clear of ‘sexually explicit’ content until the 1980s. Jonathan Bignell’s work suggests that the increasing number of programmes relating to sex and sexuality on television in the 1980s and 1990s was a result of the 1980 Broadcasting Act, and the subsequent introduction of Channel 4.[5] The Broadcasting Act required Channel 4 to ‘encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes’, and they did this through broadcasting increasingly sexual programmes. The producers promoted these programmes as cultural, meaning that Channel 4 was able to remain within the realms of acceptability.[6] Thus ATV’s preoccupation with topless modelling seems likely to have been a result of competition with Channel 4. Although ATV did not present their pieces on topless modelling as cultural, they did present them as acceptable, and it is this supposed acceptance of topless modelling, influenced by the increasingly sexualised media, which I believe presents the 1980s as a period of increasing permissiveness.

The prevalence of topless modelling features and other sexual content on television cannot suggest a new era for permissiveness by itself, yet the MACE footage provides us with insight into reactions of the general public to such material. A considerable number of the features make a point of ‘taking to the streets’ to carry out vox-pops with the general public. In all of the public interviews in the MACE material the positive reactions to Page Three outweigh the negative reactions. For example in a report aired on Central News East in 1986; of the five men and five women interviewed, only one woman disapproved of the feature, not because of its overt sexuality but because of the media in which it was presented.[7]

https://vimeo.com/album/3760338/video/152985840

Another report, aired on ATV Today in 1980 interviews a smaller pool; an older gentleman who claims he never looks at Page Three and a builder and his colleagues who shout down to the reporter “They’re beautiful! Absolutely beautiful!”[8]

https://vimeo.com/155951046

Thus in these interviews the dissenting voice is either absent or simply brushed aside. However, it must be considered that these replies are likely to have been carefully selected in order to construct the view of Page Three that the producers of ATV chose to represent, and are therefore not entirely representative of attitudes towards Page Three in the Midlands overall. Nonetheless ATV seem desperate to suggest that these pieces were reflecting public attitudes. In a similar vein, vox-pops were carried out with nine men and eight women of varying ages in programme eleven of Central Weekend, a late night discussion programme, which was aired shortly after labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood, Clare Short, took a bill to parliament attempting to ban Page Three girls from newspapers in 1986.[9]

https://vimeo.com/153766640

The majority of those interviewed had nothing to say against the feature yet the dissenting voice was more apparent in this programme than in others. Still only four of the seventeen members of the public interviewed, were against the feature; one man felt it trivialised news and two elderly women found it distasteful.[10] In the same programme the results of a poll carried out by the programme makers again revealed a positive reaction to Page Three, as 67% of people polled were against “any move to cover up the page three girls” with people responding that “the topless girls were either just good fun or sometimes even brightened up the newspapers”. Thus the material in these broadcasts does suggest that there was a general attitude of acceptance towards Page Three from the public and, to an extent, growing permissive attitudes. However it is also clear that ATV appears to have been working hard to dismiss the disapproving voices in order to promote the feature, and thus these examples must be read with caution.

The acceptance of Page Three is also emphasised through interviews with the parents of the Page Three girls or by asking the models how their families reacted. For example, Topless Model Gerri Perry was asked how her parents reacted to her job, and she replied; “No they weren’t shocked at all, they were quite pleased for me. Topless is accepted nowadays, so if it had of upset them I wouldn’t have gone ahead with it. I think they were quite pleased really.”[11]

https://vimeo.com/153766635

Not only is the acceptance of her parents (the generation prior to the advent of Page Three Girls) important in registering the notion of increased permissiveness in the period, but also the statement that the feature is accepted, suggests she witnessed very little criticism of topless modelling. Again, this reinforces the idea that Britain was becoming more accepting of topless modelling, and perhaps the promotion of female sexuality on television and in newspapers. It is important to note that this piece was filmed two years before Clare Short’s parliamentary bill, when the coverage of the topic in both the national press and on ATV increased substantially, and as a result, Geri would have been more likely to have heard the voices of dissent after the Bill was introduced. Another model, Jill Nevile, interviewed in 1980 said that her mother was not particularly impressed with her career choice but goes on to say;

I think the rest of my family backed me up quite a lot so she [her mother] succumbed to it in the end, and I think she’s not proud exactly but I don’t think she was quite as disgusted with me as I thought she might be.[12]

Again these interviews suggest a general attitude of acceptance, and none of the interviews with parents reveal a strong disagreement with topless modelling, or Page Three. Although this is indicative of permissiveness in the Midlands, although carefully chosen by producers, the people interviewed are in fact real people discussing what appears to be their true views. However, that Jill’s mother needed convincing that her daughter’s job was acceptable, highlights the fact that not everyone was as open and accepting of page three as ATV sometimes suggested. This reinforces the point that there will always be members of the population who will not adapt to or accept modernised values, thus terms such as ‘permissiveness’ cannot be applied to the entire population.[13]

The acceptance or rejection of Page Three, whether from the parents of Page Three Girls or from the general public, seems to correlate with class. Teresa Stratford has argued that;

Class is central to the Page 3 issue. Middle-class people tend not to read the Sun or the Star. Middle-class girls tend not to dream about appearing on Page 3. They have no need; most of them have job prospects which promise more interest, more respect and a longer career elsewhere. It is no accident that most Page 3 Girls come from working-class homes.[14]

Notions of class are not, at first, overt in this footage, however a close analysis reveals that Stratford’s argument can also be applied to the evidence in the ATV footage. Of the two women mentioned above Jill Nevile appears to be the more middle-class of the two and it seems that she had the most difficulty in convincing her parents that her job was ‘acceptable’. In both The Sun and ATV footage, the majority of topless models are presented as the working-class girl-next-door.[15] This is emphasised by a constant reminder to the viewers that these girls are ‘ordinary’ and live just a few miles away. For example: “the down to earth girl from Belpher in Derbyshire, who’s too shy to even take off her bikini top on holiday wants to become a topless model”,[16]

https://vimeo.com/152979170

“Jaunty Julie Bootes, seventeen, hales from Halesowen, just a step from Brum”.[17] Locality seems to have been a key feature in forming the identity of the Page Three Girl, perhaps because it made them recognisable to the viewers, or because it linked them to the readers via class. The vox-pops also reveal that the dissenting voice tended to come from the more middle-class members of society, though some distinctly working-class interviewees were also against the feature, the voice of apprehension was formed largely by middle-class men and young women. Perhaps unsurprisingly, working-class men seemed to be the most avid supporters of the feature, after all the highest proportion of The Sun readers also fit into this profile.[18] This could suggest that Page Three only demonstrates notions of permissiveness amongst the working-classes, as the ATV footage does present Page Three as a working-class issue. However this area requires further analysis as it is difficult to decipher a person’s class simply from a brief television interview. Generation also seems to play an important role in acceptance of Page Three, the parents of most of the topless models appear to be of a similar age to the majority of those who supported Page Three in the vox-pops, perhaps hinting that permissiveness had taken effect a generation before, as Central Weekend’s poll revealed “One in Three women under 40… said that Page Three pictures were degrading to women.”[19] This suggests that the ‘permissive society’ had begun to affect lived experience earlier, likely in the 1970s, as a result of second wave feminism and the gay liberation movement in the 1970s which not only promoted ‘sexual pleasure for its own sake,’[20] but also forced matters of sexuality into the public eye. Adding to this idea there is also the matter that the dissenting voice become more prominent in footage after Clare Short’s bill, which could suggest that post 1986 Page Three was becoming less of a signifier of Permissiveness, or possibly even that permissiveness itself was changing.

The way in which the topic of topless modelling was broadcast by ATV suggests an openness in terms of the sexualisation of the female body. Most of the pieces in MACE include samples of Page Three images or interviews with models, some of whom are topless during their interviews, and the bare breasts of these women quickly become the focus of the reports. It is particularly notable that the majority of the footage concerning Page Three comes from Central News East, usually broadcast as early as 6.00pm, and ATV Today broadcast just an hour later.[21] This early broadcast time meant that these images were not reserved for adult viewing but would have been viewed by people of all ages. This could be read as demonstrative of an acceptance of the proliferation of sexualised images of women on television, thus hinting at a growth in permissiveness. However, this is more representative of the attitudes held by ATV producers rather than those of the audience. By broadcasting images of bare breasted women to such a wide audience, the producers were demonstrating their attitude towards the feature. Clearly they felt that Page Three was not sexually explicit enough to be reserved until after the watershed, to their eyes perhaps it was ‘harmless’ and ‘just good fun’. However, it has been argued that ‘the media create as much as reflect reality, and their process of “selection and interpretation” is historically significant,’[22] thus there must have been at least some level of permissiveness in society for the producers to deem the topic ‘acceptable’ to broadcast, and by broadcasting the feature and promoting it as acceptable, ATV may even have been increasing notions of permissiveness amongst its viewers. Alongside this, Carolyn Kitch has demonstrated that until the 1960s, society was being conditioned to view female sexuality as monstrous,[23] yet in the 1980s it is possible to read Page Three as a promotion of female sexuality, though still in terms of male dominated heterosexuality. In these broadcasts, female sexuality is no longer monstrous but ‘a bit of fun’ and something to enjoy in your morning paper. The promotion of female sexuality to such a wide audience demonstrates that, although not in a particularly liberated form, there was an increase in freedom of expression in terms of female sexuality. Thus permissiveness in this particular form, was in fact becoming lived experience, at least for the women who appeared in Page Three, or found the images liberating as opposed to offensive.

Despite this supposed sexual liberation of Page Three, many of the models interviewed deny that their job is particularly ‘sexy’,[24] though the sexuality of the resulting images is hard to dispute. But it appears that the way in which the features were presented may have made them seem more ‘acceptable’. The producers at ATV worked hard to promote the idea that the feature was in fact ‘harmless’, the pieces were often presented in a playful tone, and with the exception of the Central Weekend programme mentioned above, none of the pieces appear to take the issue seriously. By presenting the issue as something to joke about rather than something to be offended by, which Patricia Holland argues is the way in which The Sun presented the feature, ATV could be understood to be promoting Page Three and encouraging support for it.[25] ATV could also be perceived as responsible for the supposed acceptance of Page Three amongst its viewers. That a news channel was broadcasting images of topless models, is likely to have made the issue seem less threatening, indeed the media creates reality as much as reflects it, and ATV’s instance that Page Three was harmless may have convinced the viewers that Page Three was acceptable . So perhaps it was the supposed lack of ‘sexiness’, emphasised by both the models, and it some ways by ATV, which made Page Three seem acceptable. Yet despite ATV’s insistence that most people were perfectly happy with the feature, five thousand letters were sent to Clare Short after the introduction of her Bill in 1986, and the ‘overwhelming message of the letters was one of support for what Clare Short was trying to do.’[26] With the knowledge that there were still a number of people who disagreed with the feature, reactions to Page Three cannot reflect an entirely permissive society, but they do demonstrate that to some extent, Britain, or at least the Midlands, was more permissive in the 1980s than it was in the 1960s. However Page Three is a clear indicator of the complexity of sexuality in the media as well as the complexity of notions of permissiveness.

The public majority who accepted Page Three suggests that society had become ‘permissive’ in some ways by the 1980s. The ATV footage makes it evident that there was some level of freedom to express female sexuality on television and in newspapers, which suggests a move away from the Conservative values of the 1950s and 1960s. I believe that this is due to the increased sexualisation of the media, and that as a result, Britons were becoming increasingly exposed to matters of sex and sexuality in their everyday lives. Yet permissiveness did not and could not reach everyone and thus perhaps it is the term ‘permissive society’ itself is what makes this issue so complex. By itself the coverage of Page Three in ATV programming cannot suggest a completely new timeline for notions of permissiveness. However it does demonstrate that some people, particularly the working-classes, had become more permissive by the 1980s. Siân Nichols has recommended that historians move away from single media histories and instead focus on the wider media landscape,[27] and if further research would allow, this topic would benefit from an analysis of the sexualisation of the media as whole, perhaps from the late 1960s until the early 1990s in order to discern when or how the sexualisation of the media affected notions of permissiveness.

 

[1] Jonathan Green, ‘The Permissive society: Do your own thing’, in All Dressed Up; The sixties and the counter-culture (London: Jonathan Cape, 1998).

[2] Feona Attwood, ‘Introduction’ to Mainstreaming Sex (London: I.B. Tauris, 2009), xix.

[3] Vic Giles, ‘The bare facts about the origins of Page 3’, The Guardian, 21^st January 2015, 3.

[4] Adrian Bingham, Family Newspapers? Sex, Private Life & The British Popular Press 1918-1878, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 1 & 263.

[5] Jonathan Bignell, An Introduction to Television Studies (London: Routledge, 2004), 239.

[6] Bignell, An Introduction, 45.

[7] Central News East, ‘Topless Models’, first broadcast 14 March 1986, MACE, University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3760338/video/152985840.

[8] ATV Today, ‘Page 3 Girl,’ first broadcast 8 February 1980, Media Archive for Central England (hereafter MACE), University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3760338/video/155951046.

[9] Teresa Stratford, ‘Women and the Press’, in Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, eds Andrew Belsey, Ruth F. Chadwick (London: Routledge, 1992), 132.

[10] Central Weekend [Programme 011], ‘Page Three,’ first broadcast 18 April 1986, MACE, University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3760338/video/153766640.

[11] Citizen 84 [Programme 01], ‘Page Three,’ first broadcast 16 January 1984, MACE, University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3760338/video/153766635

[12] ATV Today, ‘Page 3 Girls’.

[13] Christian Adam, Christoph Knill and Steffen Hurka, On The Road To Permissiveness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 51.

[14] Stratford, ‘Women and the Press’, 133.

[15] Patricia Holland, ‘The Page Three Girl Speaks to Women, Too’, Screen 24 (1983), 97.

[16] Central News East, ‘Young Model’, first broadcast 17 November 1986, MACE, University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3760338/video/152979170

[17] ATV Today, ‘Page 3 Girls’.

[18] Bobby Duffy and Laura Rowden, ‘You are what you read?’, MORI Social Research Institute (2005), 21.

[19] Central Weekend, ‘Page Three’.

[20] Nickie Charles, Gender in Modern Britain (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 113.

[21] Peter Dear and Peter Davalle, ‘Today’s television and radio programmes’, The Times , March 14, 1986, 31, Peter Lee and Peter Dear, ‘Television and radio’ The Times, September 21, 1982, 23 and Peter Dear, ‘Today’s television and radio programmes’, The Times, December 30, 1981, 17.

[22] Carolyn Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 3.

[23] Kitch, The Girl, 187.

[24] Citizen 84 [Programme 01], ‘Page Three’, Central Weekend, ‘Page Three,’ and Central News East, ‘Topless Models’.

[25] Holland, ‘The Page Three Girl’, 94.

[26] Kiri Tunks and Diane Hutchinson, comp., Dear Clare…this is what women feel about Page 3 (London: Hutchinson Radius, 1991), x.

[27] Siân Nicholas, ‘Media History or Media Histories?: Readdressing the history of the mass media in inter-war Britain’, Media History 18 (2012): 379-394.

 

 

Bibliography.

Adam, Christian, Christoph Knill and Steffen Hurka. On The Road To Permissiveness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Attwood, Feona. ‘Introduction’ to Mainstreaming Sex, xiii-xxiv. London: I.B. Tauris, 2009.

Bignell, Jonathan. An Introduction to Television Studies. London: Routledge, 2004.

Bingham, Adrian. Family Newspapers? Sex, Private Life & The British Popular Press 1918-1978. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Charles, Nickie. Gender in Modern Britain. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Duffy, Bobby and Laura Rowden. ‘You are what you read?’. MORI Social Research Institute (2005): 1-30.

Giles, Vic. ‘The bare facts about the origins of Page 3’. The Guardian. 21^st January 2015: 3.

Green, Jonathan. ‘The Permissive society: Do your own thing’. In All Dressed Up; The sixties and the counter-culture. London: Jonathan Cape, 1998.

Holland, Patricia. ‘The Page Three Girl Speaks to Women, Too’. Screen 24 (1983): 84-102.

Kitch, Carolyn. The Girl on the Magazine Cover. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.

Nicholas, Siân. ‘Media History or Media Histories?: Readdressing the history of the mass media in inter-war Britain’. Media History 18 (2012): 379-394.

Stratford, Teresa. ‘Women and the Press’. In Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, eds Andrew Belsey, Ruth F. Chadwick, 130-136. London: Routledge, 1992.

Tunks, Kiri and Diane Hutchinson, comp. Dear Clare… this is what women feel about Page 3. London: Hutchinson Radius, 1991.

Primary Sources

ATV Today. ‘Page 3 Girls.’ First broadcast 8 February 1980. MACE, University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3760338/video/155951046.

Central News East. ‘Topless Models’. First broadcast 14 March 1986. MACE, University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3760338/video/152985840.

Central News East. ‘Young Model’. First broadcast 17 November 1986. MACE, University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3760338/video/152979170

Central Weekend [Programme 011]. ‘Page Three’. First broadcast 18 April 1986. MACE, University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3760338/video/153766640.

Citizen 84 [Programme 01]. ‘Page Three’. First broadcast 16 January 1984. Media Archive for Central England (hereafter MACE), University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3760338/video/153766635.

Dear, Peter. ‘Today’s television and radio programmes’. The Times. December 30, 1981, 17.

Dear, Peter and Peter Davalle. ‘Today’s television and radio programmes’. The Times. March 14, 1986: 31.

Lee, Peter and Peter Dear. ‘Television and radio’. The Times. September 21, 1982: 23.

 

 

Policing and Media in Britain, 1984-85. By Imogen Anderson

The 1984-1985 miners’ strike was a ‘brutal clash’ between the Conservative government and the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), the events of which became televised extensively on an international scale.^[1] During the documentary Only Doing Their Job? (1984) a Doncaster NUM member interviewed about the strike explains, ‘it’s made a lot of lads think about the black and the Asian communities in this country, and how they’ve been persecuted as well’.^[2] The persecution he speaks of here is a persecution by the police force in 1980s Britain, a force which became increasingly politicised, adopting threatening, and in some cases aggressive, techniques to counteract the ongoing disputes of this period.^[3] The specific years of 1984 and 1985 saw both the Handsworth riots and the largest miners’ strike of the decade, and are crucial in the discussion of policing and its highly visible nature during this period. The interactions with the police extended past these specific incidents and were an element of growing issues of race and class. Referred to as ‘Maggie’s Army’, the Conservative government’s relationship with the police had a considerable effect on their development, and how they were perceived by the public.

Historian Stephen P. Savage has outlined both of these events as significant developments in the discussion of policing during this period, specifically the issue of police accountability.^[4] However, the media coverage of policing presented a different viewpoint to that of the communities experiencing policing. Confrontations with the police which represented a challenge to the maintenance of law and order were approached differently by television broadcasting and newspapers, both on a regional and national basis.^[5] This essay will discuss how these events were portrayed within local broadcasting and national tabloids and draw lines of comparison between the experiences of striking miners and the black community in Handsworth. In order to so I will first contextualise the actions taken by Thatcher’s government which resulted in a militarisation of the British police force. Next, this essay will discuss the interactions between the police and the black communities of Handsworth, Birmingham. The primary sources utilised here will be the report by ATV on the night of the 1985 Handsworth riots, as there is a lack of first-hand media sources produced by the black communities involved in these riots.^[6] Finally I will consider the portrayal by the mining communities of their interaction with the police, primarily within the documentary Only Doing Their Job?. This portrayal of the miner’s interaction with the police will be contrasted with the representation of the police by regional news and national newspapers in order to chart the growing debate about incidents between the police and miners. In contrast to the experience of the miners, black communities throughout England had been targeted by the police since the 1970s, questioning whether these incidents were a result of changes in policing techniques, or a product of continuity.^[7] This examination will assess the information presented to the regional viewers within the local media and national newspapers, and the subsequent marginalisation of experiences by these communities.

During a radio interview broadcast on Razor’s Edge in 1986 John Alderson, former Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, claimed he left the police force because the nature of police work had become ‘politicised’.[8] In order to consider why the police force had developed in this manner, and subsequently how this was portrayed in the media, it is important to first contextualise the relationship between the police and the government. Gerry Northam asserts that this process of change did not begin with Thatcher’s government, however actions taken by the government accelerated the change.^[9] Prior to their election in 1979, the Conservative government had been critical of Labour’s record on crime and policing, thus when they came to power changes in the organisation and control of policing were drastic.[10] This is mentioned within the documentary Only Doing Their Job?, where one miner interviewed claims ‘what does she do as soon as she comes into power? She gives them [the police] an 18% pay rise’.[11] The reference to Thatcher as ‘she’ holds her directly accountable for the pay rise, which was thought to have installed a sense of superiority within the police force. Pay rises and increased central funding of the police force were followed by ‘the establishment of a police department in the Home Office which extended central control of police’.[12] These changes, though significant, were not as visible as the developments in policing tactics. From 1981 the tactics of public order control became increasingly militarised, and by the end of the decade every major city’s police force was armed with plastic bullets, CS gas and live firearms.[13] This policing revolution encouraged by the conservative government was captured by ATV, an Independent Television service for the Midlands region, in its Central Lobby programme on 12^th April 1984. [14]

https://vimeo.com/117254244

The short broadcast captured the activity around a vote in Sheffield by the leaders of the NUM, concerning whether or not to continue strike action. Outside of the building where the vote is taking place hundreds of miners have gathered and are being kept in place by the police. Towards the end of the broadcast a Canadian television broadcaster is interviewed, when asked if the scenes of police and miners in conflict will surprise the viewers in Canada, the broadcaster responds ‘it does surprise them, perhaps not as much as it would have surprised them five years ago, when the concept of the British bobbies battling it out on picket lines was perhaps not as common as it’s become in recent years’.^[15] This evolution of the police from the ‘British Bobby’ to a military force established an alliance between the government and the police. However, this was not necessarily a consistent representation within the media discourse surrounding the events of 1984-1985, this lack of consistency is significant as the news media acted as ‘the main source of information and beliefs used to form the interpretation framework’ for events.^[16]

Northam’s assertion that the militarisation of the police was accelerated rather than initiated by Thatcher’s government is supported by the treatment of black communities in Handsworth, and other predominantly non-white communities throughout England. The 1980s saw riots in Liverpool, Brixton and Notting Hill, amongst other areas, and these riots were thought to have been instigated by insensitive policing of black communities.[17] After the first Brixton riots of 1981 a subsequent report by the Home Secretary, Lord Scarman concluded that these were ‘essentially an outburst of anger and resentment by young black people against the police’.^[18] This report, along with other incidents, initiated the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984.[19] Though the act ‘contained a thorough overhaul of the existing law defining police powers and evidence in criminal trials’ and made arrangements for community consultation, it also increased police constables’ stop and search powers. The ability to exercise power where it was seen fit aggravated already poor police relations, as black youths in particular felt targeted. Crimes such as drug possession were stereotyped as ‘black crimes’ and drug raids often escalated into rioting as a result of these extensions of power.[20] Research on policing conducted in the 1970s, ‘indicated that racism and racial prejudice in police culture were more widespread and more extreme than in wider society’.^[21] Thus race was a cause of conflict and the rioting in predominantly black areas demonstrated the frustrations of these communities.

Footage broadcast on ATV of the Handsworth riots are a crucial representation of the relationship between the police and the black community of Handsworth. Broadcast on the 10^th September 1985, the Central News programme shows shots from the riot and interviews with the people of Handsworth. Though Handsworth was a predominantly BME community the first interview prioritises the white Chief Superintendent Donald Wilson who claims ‘this sort of thing is so rare that anyone is caught out’.[22]

https://vimeo.com/117268696

Despite the reoccurrence of rioting throughout Britain during the 1980s, the superintendent claims to be ‘caught out’, indicating a lapse in police understanding of issues. The interviewer, Richard Barnett, then asks, ‘have you any idea why this all started?’, to which the chief superintendent responds ‘no we haven’t any idea at all’.[23] In contrast to this, the two community leaders Gus Williams and Howard Reid acknowledge the police as instigators the riots. Williams explains, ‘it would appear through insensitive policing again, we’re now struck with this silly problem’.[24] By categorising the riots as ‘silly’ Williams indicates that this problem could have been solved or prevented without the intervention of the police. Williams not only holds the police accountable for the riot, but also for then exasperating the issue further with inappropriate tactics, he explains, ‘the police have brought in a pincer movement which has trapped some of the young lads who are throwing petrol bombs’.^[25] Here Williams identifies the lack of care which the police have shown for the rioters, highlighting a sense of alienation between the police and the community despite the instigation of community policing under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.[26] This report demonstrated to the viewers the first-hand accounts of issues between the community and the police, the accusations of systematic insensitivity highlighting a deeper issue within policing.

Though this broadcast offered insight into the community’s views of the Handsworth riots, it also portrays the dominant view that the police were not at fault. Barnett claims that the police had gone ‘out of their way to foster good relations’ before asking Wilson, ‘has tonight destroyed that?’, giving the impression that the police were the only group trying to improve relations. [27] A similar sentiment was expressed by Margaret Thatcher during a press interview after the riots, where she claimed ‘it can’t be done only by the police’ suggesting that a resolution required contribution from all members of the community, which had been absent until then.[28] Suggestions such as this were in a clear effort to maintain the position of police in British society as a respectable and safe force. Despite these efforts the issues of race which were at the root of the conflict between police officers and black communities had been publicised since the 1970s, predominantly within newspapers. In 1975 The Times reported on a debate between the Expenditure Committee concerning the need for more ‘coloured’ police constables.[29] The report detailed the viewpoints given by the committee about the matter, describing where ‘great importance’ had been given a subject, thus providing the reader with a comparatively more objective account than ATV reports. The consistency of newspaper reporting between 1970 and 1985 concerning the police and BME communities emphasises that this was a continual source of unrest, however one which was not willingly acknowledged by the local media of Birmingham. After the rioting in Handsworth, a background report was broadcast on ATV in an effort to explain the situation.

https://vimeo.com/117268695

The report details the inhabitants of Handsworth and their issues within British society, summarising ‘Handsworth as it appears has always been a volatile multi-racial area’.[30] The report also accuses the West Indian communities of having ‘shrunk into a world of their own’, accusing the community of the alienation between themselves and the rest of British society. ^[31] Teun A Van Dijk has explained how ‘white press engages in an overall strategy of positive self-presentation of the white ingroup (especially of the authorities and other elite groups), and negative other-presentation of the alien outgroups’.^[32] Utilising Van Dijks concept, by questioning the ability of West Indian people to assimilate with British society, the report implies an unwilling on the behalf of the black community, presenting them negatively. Furthermore as the footage of Handsworth from ATV often shows a heavy police presence, suggesting a protective and authoritative influence around the disruptive area, this demonstrates a positive presentation of the police force, therefore race was present but unfairly represented. These representations question the extent to which ATV could bring matters to the public attention without imposing its own views, particularly in comparison to newspaper reports, instead offering the local viewers a reserved and conservative view of the violence.

The alienation of the police from communities became most visible during the miners’ strike of 1984 and 1985, when acts of aggression on the part of both the miners and the police was broadcast almost regularly. This industrial conflict became a visual display of the new police attitudes and tactics which had developed through Thatcher’s government. In comparison to the black communities of Handsworth, those involved in the 1984-1985 miners’ strike were somewhat unaccustomed to the treatment they received from police. Recalling his involvement with the strikes V. L. Allen has claimed ‘the violence that is implicit in strikes invariably becomes explicit when police turn up’.[33] Similarly to the issues in Handsworth, here the police are viewed as inciting violence. This is a sentiment which was captured by the documentary Only Doing Their Job?.

https://vimeo.com/album/3219609/video/118026861

Created by a team of independent film and video makers, Only Doing Their Job?, was one of six films produced for the Miners’ Campaign Tapes.[34] Though these tapes were produced in support of the miners and therefore constructed in a manner which shows the miners in a positive light, the documentary also uses footage taken from picket lines alongside interviews with miners and miner’s wives. During the documentary, NUM member, Dave Douglass is interviewed, and states ‘when a person becomes a policeman he has sold his class interests, he has crossed a class line’.[35] Despite both the police force and mining communities being predominantly white groups, there was a conflict which was reminiscent of the altercations between police and black communities, while this cannot be attributed to race, the new organisation of the police force under Thatcher had raised the issues of class which Douglass identifies. It is in this manner which the mining communities experienced the newly politicised nature of the police, bringing them into alignment with the black community. John Alderson also spoke of this within his interview for Razor’s Edge by explaining, ‘the Conservative Party has tended to see the police as almost part of the Conservative Party, which has again further alienated people from the police’.^[36] The working-class miners on strike viewed this as a mutual relationship through which the police adopted the attitude of the ruling classes.[37] While the documentary did not have as large a viewership as ATV, those who saw the documentary were witness to a push back from the mining community against policing. Though the ‘constitutional weakness of accountability facilitated the use of police to defeat one side of an industrial dispute’, the striking mining community used media in the form of the Miner’s Campaign Tapes to fight back against this facilitation within the established order.^[38]

Whilst this discourse of class consensus was present within the mining groups involved in police conflict, the mainstream media produced differing messages. Again ATV promoted ideas of stability, portraying police as a protective force, who worked to maintain peace between striking and working miners. Broadcast on 29 March 1984, ATV’s Central Lobby reported on the conflict between groups of miners as some continued to work on despite the strike order from NUM leader Arthur Scargill.[39]

https://vimeo.com/136596221

South Derbyshire miner’s wives are interviewed, one expressing her gratitude to the police by claiming, ‘if those policemen hadn’t been down at Cadley hill, how would any of them [working miners] have gotten past 1200 pickets?’[40] In this way the dispute is only portrayed as a conflict between the two groups of miners, the police acting as a protective force, defending those who wanted to continue with work against those who did not. The solidarity between local broadcasting and the police was replicated to a certain degree by the national newspapers in the initial months of the strike. At the outset of the strike, April 1984, The Times published an article titled ‘Thatcher endorses police conduct in miners dispute’, which summarised a recent interview with the Prime Minister where she complimented the police for the way they had ‘kept open a man’s right to go to work unmolested’.[41] At this point the police were not viewed as handling the dispute violently, this may be due to a reluctance on the part of the newspapers to be seen as in favour of the strike movement. However, as the strike progressed more criticism arose in the media, this is commented upon within Only Doing Their Job?, where one NUM member explains, ‘it’s only now that the media in general are allowing it to be shown’.[42] This is evidenced by a later Times article, published in October 1984, concerning a report on the violence between miners and the police, with the headline ‘Working miners catalogue strike’s violence, intimidation and abuse’. [43] This article offered a timeline of attacks both on miners and the police, providing readers with a more balanced view than some few months before. The change in media coverage indicates that the perceived involvement of the police in the dispute had altered, there was later acknowledgement about the confrontation between the police and miners. Though the issue of class was not brought to the forefront of the media discourse, the changes in policing were brought to reader’s attention by newspaper coverage of the strike.

The events of 1984-1985 drew the differing communities of black groups and miners into alignment through the shared experience of police insensitivity and mistreatment, however the media did not ultimately present these experiences objectively or consistently. ATV reinforced the conservative perception that the nature of policing was unchanged, police were there to protect the communities as a service. While this was the message sent out by local television broadcasters, the national press offered a more varied view. The issues of race in policing was a consistent topic in newspapers prior to the rioting in Handsworth, and though the issues of class were not evident in the mainstream news, the mistreatment of miners came to light through the development of the strike action. As asserted by Northam, developments in policing under the Conservative Government exacerbated existing problems of race and disrupted class consensus. These developments resulted in a growing discourse surrounding the police, fronted by the communities who had increasingly negative experiences with them. Therefore media such as Only Doing Their Job? and other broadcasts which included interviews with members of the community provided viewers with alternate interpretations to that presented within the established framework.

 

 

[1] S. Buckley, ‘The State, the Police and the Judiciary in the Miners’ Strike: Observations and Discussions, Thirty Years on’, Capital & Class 39 (2015), 314.

[2] Miners Campaign Tape Project, ‘Only Doing their Job?’, August 1984, Media Archive for Central England (hereafter MACE), University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/album/3219609/video/118026861 at 16.39

[3] Gerry Northam, Shooting in the Dark: Riot Police in Britain (United Kingdom: Faber & Faber, 1988).

[4] Stephen P. Savage and Lynton Robins, eds., Public Policy Under Thatcher (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990).

[5] E. Cashmore and E. McLaughlin, eds., Out of Order? Policing Black People (United Kingdom: Routledge, 2013), 43.

[6] Central News, ‘Handsworth Riot’, first broadcast 10 September 1895, MACE, University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3219883/video/117268696

[7] Cashmore and McLaughlin, Out of Order?

[8] Liz Jackson, ‘Policing in Thatcher’s Britian’, Police Issues, August 1986, 179.

[9] Northam, Shooting in the Dark, 142.

[10] Timothy Brain, A History of Policing in England and Wales from 1974: A Turbulent Journey (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 56.

[11] Only Doing Their Job?, at 18.57

[12]Nigel Fielding, The Police and Social Conflict (Portland, OR: Routledge Cavendish, 2005), 74.

[13] Northam, Shooting in the Dark, 30.

[14] Central Lobby [Programme 054] extract, first broadcast 14April 1984, MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/album/3219609/video/117254244.

[15] Ibid, at 03.05.

[16] Teun A. van Dijk,   Elite discourse and racism. Newbury Park, Calif. London Sage Publications 1993, 242.

[17] Tony Jefferson, ‘Policing the Riots: From Bristol and Brixton to Tottenham, via Toxteth, Handsworth, Etc’, Criminal Justice Matters 87 (2012), 8.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Legislation Gov [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents, accessed 12 April 2016].

[20] Ben Bowling and Coretta Phillips, ‘Policing Ethnic Minority Communities’, in Handbook of Policing, eds Tim Newburn (Devon: Willan Publishing, 2010), 2.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Central News, ‘Handsworth Riot’, at

[23] Ibid, at 02.01.

[24] Ibid, at 02.15.

[25] Ibid, at 02.28.

[26] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

[27] Ibid, at 04.00.

[28] ‘Thatcher on Handsworth riots’, British Universities Film & Video Council [http://bufvc.ac.uk/tvandradio/lbc/index.php/segment/0012600168018, accessed 26 Apr 2016].

[29] ‘Improvement In Police Recruitment: More Coloured Constables Wanted’, The Times, 11 July 1975.

[30] Central News, ‘Handsworth Background Report’, first broadcast on 10 September 1985, MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/album/3219883/video/117268695, at 02.25.

[31] Ibid, at 03.31.

[32] Teun A Van Dijk, ‘Racism and Argumentation: Race Riot Rhetoric in Tabloid Editorials’, in Argumentation Illuminated, eds F.H Eemeren (Amsterdam: SICSAT, 1992), 243.

[33] V. Allen, ‘The Year-Long Miners’ Strike, March 1984-March 1985: A Memoir’, Industrial Relations Journal 40 (2009), 283.

[34] ‘The Miners’ Campaign Tapes’, British Universities Film & Video Council [http://bufvc.ac.uk/dvdfind/index.php/title/av72438, accessed 10 Apr 2016].

[35] Only Doing Their Job?, 19.14

[36] Jackson, ‘Policing in Thatcher’s Britain’, 179.

[37] Only Doing Their Job?, 19.04.

[38]Fielding, The Police and Social Conflict, 73.

[39] Central Lobby [Programme 052], first broadcast 29 March 1984, MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/album/3219609/video/136596221.

[40] Ibid, at 03.59.

[41] ‘Thatcher Endorses Police Conduct In Miners’ Dispute’, The Times, 10 April 1984.

[42] Only Doing Their Job?, at 09.14.

[43] ‘Working miners catalogue strike’s violence, intimidation and abuse’, The Times, 6 October 1984.

 

Bibliography

Primary sources:

Central Lobby [Programme 052] extract. First broadcast 29 March 1984. Media Archive for Central England, University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3219609/video/136596221.

Central Lobby [Programme 054] extract. First broadcast 14April 1984. Media Archive for Central England, University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3219609/video/117254244.

Central News, ‘Handsworth Background Report’. First broadcast on 10 September 1985, Media Archive for Central England, University of Lincoln.                                 https://vimeo.com/album/3219883/video/117268695.

Central News, ‘Handsworth Riot’. First broadcast 10 September 1895. Media Archive for Central England, University of Lincoln. https://vimeo.com/album/3219883/video/117268696

‘Improvement In Police Recruitment: More Coloured Constables Wanted’. The Times. 11 July 1975. London, England. pg. 12. Issue 59445.

Jackson, Liz. ‘Policing in Thatcher’s Britian’. Police Issues. August 1986, 179-180.

Miners Campaign Tape Project, ‘Only Doing their Job?’. August 1984, Media Archive for Central England, University of Lincoln, at 16.39. https://vimeo.com/album/3219609/video/118026861.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Legislation Gov. Accessed 12 April 2016; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents..

‘Thatcher Endorses Police Conduct In Miners’ Dispute’. The Times. 10 April 1984. London, England.

‘Thatcher on Handsworth riots’. British Universities Film & Video Council. Accessed 26 Apr 2016; http://bufvc.ac.uk/tvandradio/lbc/index.php/segment/0012600168018.

‘Working Miners Catalogue Strike’s Violence, Intimidation And Abuse’. The Times. 6 October 1984. London, England. 4.

Secondary sources:

Allen, V. L. ‘The Year-Long Miners’ Strike, March 1984-March 1985: A Memoir’. Industrial Relations Journal 40, no. 4 (July 2009): 278–91.

Arnold, Bruce. Margaret Thatcher: A Study in Power. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1984.

Bowling, Ben and Coretta Phillips. ‘Policing Ethnic Minority Communities’. In Handbook of Policing, eds Tim Newburn. Devon, England: Willan Publishing, 2010.

Brain, Timothy. A History of Policing in England and Wales from 1974: A Turbulent Journey. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Buckley, S. B. ‘The State, the Police and the Judiciary in the Miners’ Strike: Observations and Discussions, Thirty Years on’. Capital & Class 39, no. 3 (September 14, 2015): 419–34.

Cashmore, E. and E. McLaughlin, eds. Out of Order? Policing Black People. United Kingdom: Routledge, 2013.

Connell, Kieran. ‘Photographing Handsworth: Photography, Meaning and Identity in a British Inner City’. Patterns of Prejudice 46, no. 2 (May 2012): 128–53.

Fielding, Nigel. The Police and Social Conflict. Portland, OR: Routledge Cavendish, 2005.

Jefferson, Tony. ‘Policing the Riots: From Bristol and Brixton to Tottenham, via Toxteth, Handsworth, Etc’. Criminal Justice Matters 87, no. 1 (March 2012): 8–9.

Negrine, Ralph N. Television and the Press Since 1945. Manchester: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.

Northam, Gerry. Shooting in the Dark: Riot Police in Britain. United Kingdom: Faber & Faber, 1988.

Savage, Stephen P. and Lynton Robins, eds. Public Policy Under Thatcher. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990.

Seymour-Ure, Colin. The British Press and Broadcasting Since 1945. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1991.

Stephens, Mike and Saul Becker, eds. Police Force, Police Service: Care and Control in Britain. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press, 1994.

‘The Miners’ Campaign Tapes’, British Universities Film & Video Council. Accessed 10 Apr 2016; http://bufvc.ac.uk/dvdfind/index.php/title/av72438.

van Dijk, Teun A. ‘Race, Riots and the Press: An Analysis of Editorials in the British Press about the 1985 Disorders’. International Communication Gazette 43, no. 3 (January 1, 1989): 229–53.

Van Dijk, Teun A. ‘Racism and Argumentation: Race Riot Rhetoric in Tabloid Editorials’. In Argumentation Illuminated, F.H Eemeren eds. Amsterdam: SICSAT, 1992.

Whiting, Richard. ‘Affluence and Industrial Relations in Post-War Britain’. Contemporary British History 22, no. 4 (December 2008): 519–36.