Argumentum In Terrorem

I hate The Evening Standard.

Admittedly, most British newspapers are pretty noxious. Murdoch's The Sun is always the first that comes to mind, with its hypocritical pro-family rampant right-wing rants on the front page, and the topless Page Three pin-up overleaf. But the Standard, humorously and appropriately nicknamed The Evening Bastard, is surely the worst of the lot.

When I first arrived in London, I greeted the Standard's headlines with some excitement. The Standard's news stand headlines, with blue-and-white masthead and (seemingly) handwritten headlines, are as much a London landmark as red Routemasters and black cabs. Each afternoon, on my way home from work, my eyes searched for the Standard's headlines. How quaint, I thought, that in the 21st century, there is still a market for newspapers in the afternoon. And conversely, how wonderful that London has the population, and thus the market, to warrant afternoon newspapers.

That rosy view did not last very long. My Damascene conversion was slow, yet gradually advancing with each new Standard headline that greeted me. I read many headlines on a daily basis, and quickly detected the common themes: death, destruction, fear, uncertainty, and doubt... sometimes concerning celebrities... more often concerning terrorism. Just imagine the editors' glee if they got hold of a story concerning a terrorist celebrity. Now this marketing strategy is not unique to the Standard. All newspapers like to appeal to fear. The difference is that the Standard never has a positive headline. Ever. Even The Sun has an occasionally cheery headline, and when not, the headlines are often pithy, if not downright funny.

The final straw for me was the Standard's headline "TERROR PLOT TO BLITZ HEATHROW". I saw this headline on my way home from work, one Friday afternoon in 2005. It really got me worried, and somewhat intrigued, about a new terror plot that must have been thwarted in the few hours between my lunch break, and the close of business that day. Alas, I was tricked. (Or as "they" would say, the headline worked). There was no terror threat that day. The editors chose that headline to advertise the paper's routine reporting of evidence adduced at trial earlier that day. Apparently, some Muslim extremists had plotted to raze Heathrow. But my point is that this was old news. In fact, the material time of this "terror plot" was a full two years before the date of the headline.

Now wisened to the Standard's policy of death and destruction, I eagerly look for each day's new outrage. Yesterday, I spotted "THAMES FLOOD: PREPARE TO FLEE". In fairness to the Standard, we have had "a bit of rain". And it is true that most of Lambeth, and a lot of south London is flood plain, protected from the Thames by the 120 year old Albert Embankment. It is also true that England is slowly sinking in to the Channel, London-first. It's also true that the flood risk is real, and that the Thames Barrier will eventually need to be replaced... but not before sometime between 2030 and 2050. To suggest that Londoners should now prepare to flee is hilariously irresponsible, in the extreme.

I can appreciate that the Standard's editors have a tough sell. The media market is saturated, with readers now able to access some form of electronic news media at work, often on-line, and often for free. There is also the free paper war being raged on London streets each afternoon. Basically, ghastly Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is attempting to muscle into the afternoon paper market, with its free rag thelondonpaper. Associated Press, who own the Standard, also offer their own free paper. It used to be called the Standard Lite, but was rebranded and dumbed-down to become the London Lite in advance of News Corp's arrival. Disregard the hype: neither paper is any good. Both are mostly filled with celebrity news, which does hold lurid interest value for most people, and definitely myself. But page after page of paparazzo-photographs with taglines like "Underpantless Lindsay Lohan falling out of blah club in Mayfair, earlier this morning" does not a paper make. At best, the papers offer a brief distraction on a tube ride home. But let's be realistic: their primary purpose is to sell advertising, not inform.

Still, the paper war rages on. And as with all wars, it is the civilians who always lose. The free paper touts are everywhere, and each has the ridiculous brief from management that they must offer a paper to every passer-by. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. That means they block already over-crowded streets, and will impede your passage by waving a paper in your face, often, even, if you are already carrying the same title. This situation is exceptionally annoying. At first, I wanted to punch some of these rude paper touts, but I'm slowly coming round to their existence. They serve a valuable purpose. In fact, right now, I'm even rooting for the free papers. I'm hoping that if this free paper nonsense continues, it will slowly whittle away at the The Evening Bastard's readership, and, eventually, even threaten its very existence. :-)

In writing this blog post, I found a really interesting archive on Flickr of Standard headlines since 2005. Don't take my word for it, view the archive to see what I mean.