Watching brief - Amanda Platell fails to be shocked by bosoms
Published 04 November 2002
If Patricia "Who It?" Hewitt gets upset at the sight of a woman's bosom, it must be hell for her watching any episode of EastEnders
Another week, another Blair Babe blunder. Just as we were recovering from the shock resignation and public self-flagellation of Estelle Morris - now known as the "pupils' princess", thanks to Rory Bremner - Patricia Hewitt demonstrated why there are so few women left in frontline British politics.
Her attack on the "sexist and pathetic" poster for the British International Motor Show, featuring a woman in a rather modest white bra, was a desperate and ill-judged attempt by the cabinet minister known as Patricia "Who It?" to raise her profile. If she gets upset at the sight of a woman's bosom, it must be hell for her flicking through a copy of the Sun or watching any episode of EastEnders.
This was no gaffe but a carefully planned media operation. It all started with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (who moonlights as Minister for Women) briefing a group of female journalists. She assumed, rather naIvely, that they would be sympathetic to her stance. But not all women are still fighting 1970s feminist battles, minister. The real problem for Hewitt is that she is the cabinet's invisible woman and has made no impact since taking over at the DTI. Hence the "eye-catching initiative" and a spin operation gone terribly wrong.
Female politicians are too often complicit in the media's trivialisation of them. If you wear leopard print shoes, they will eclipse any speech you make. If you bang on about lace bras and sexist ads, and ignore the crucial issues of your brief - like the collapse of manufacturing industry and the future of nuclear power stations - you will be judged accordingly.
Hewitt says on her website that she is "helping to make our country a leader in the modern global economy". A laughing stock, more like.
Gentleman Jim Naughtie came to the rescue of a damsel in distress on the Today programme last Monday. The clocks went back, and so did his fellow presenter Martha Kearney. First, Naughtie stepped in to aid a speechless Kearney when a live link went down, then again as Today listeners throughout the country leapt out of bed when she announced it was seven minutes past nine. It was, thankfully, only nine minutes past seven.
To name and shame or shame but not name: that is the question. Or at least that's the question which has been vexing broadsheet editors for the past week after the identity of the man who allegedly date-raped Ulrika Jonsson 14 years ago was revealed on television.
For the purposes of this column, we will call him Towaru - The One Who Allegedly Raped Ulrika.
First, the London Evening Standard decided to reveal his identity. This meant that millions could watch, while clutching a copy of the Standard with its damning front page, Towaru on their screens, as the programme he presents was drawing to an end. He either had no idea of the newspaper's story or he was very cool. Then the other tabloids followed suit, publishing his name. The broadsheets and the broadcasters held their noses and ignored the story. But not for long. For those who thought no one was interested, they should have tried to buy a copy of the Standard in leafy, leftie Hampstead that day. Sold out, I'm afraid.
These tales have a life of their own and, increasingly, the broadsheets felt the urge to discuss the wider issue it presented - trial by media and rape. They were aided and abetted by "Quickdraw" Blunkett, the fastest headline writer in the west, when he announced a review of the date-rape laws. What a coincidence.
Mary Riddell did not name Towaru in her Observer column, and neither did the Independent on Sunday in its Readers' Editor discussion of the "first principles of a decent press". To protect his identity in a two-page spread seven pages earlier, complete with miniature tabloid front pages, the paper blacked-out Towaru's face. In my newsagent, the IoS was just under the News of the World, which had a full-page picture of him with a rolled-up thing in his nose, surrounded by the headlines: "Shamed TV star **** is caught snorting cocaine. He's finished. He ripped off my clothes in crazed sex attack. But I will tell police [after I've sold my story first]."
Several women have now decided to go to the police. We know this because they, too, sold their stories to the newspapers. If there is a trial, will it be possible for this man to get fair one?
As Cheryl Barrymore tours the television studios, giving her account of the years of hell with her former husband, Michael - to flog her autobiography - she details a particularly brutal attack that left her face bleeding and bruised. Judging by the state of her semi-paralysed features today, it may have left lasting damage. Or has Mrs Barrymore just gone one round too many with the Botox needle?
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
