Interesting piece from the Sun today which raises a few of points re the G20 coverage.
Firstly the picture at the top of the page is hugely concerning (I am unable to reproduce it here because of copyright). At first glance it is an exciting scene, the manifestation of anti-bank anger captured by the massed media. But the more I look at it the more it unnerves me – where are the other protesters? I count 17 cameras in the picture, yet the ratio of press to protesters was nowhere near 17 to 1. Has the presence of so many cameras outside the RBS building egged this man on? Have we inadvertently (or even more worryingly advertently) created the news here?
The second point is that I do not recall seeing a rational, reasoned defence from a member of the banking community. Have they been given the opportunity to do so? Here all we have is the odious report of leering bankers waving money out of their windows at the march, followed by this desperate quote.
“I think if we had our way we would not necessarily dress down, we would rather carry on as normal.
“You feel a bit aggrieved having to change for the protesters, but the company asked us to dress down so we did.”
So said James Hughes of CMC markets. Almost everything about this quote is incendiary to the general public; the idea of carrying on as normal, the stroppy tone.
But why aren’t the banks waging their own PR war? Is it because they are too wary to trust the press at the moment? Or are we simply not giving them an outlet, worried that any humanising voice might puncture the devils in Saville Row suits image which is proving so popular?
4 responses so far ↓
Bob Cooper // April 2, 2009 at 12:31 pm |
Why are these comments seen as incendiary to the general public..? The way I read it is that he would preferedt o have gone to work as normal, and not to have had to change because of the protest. I agree that the banks and government are to blame but not everyone who works in that sector is on massive wages and big bonus’s. I think he is entitled to his opinion, which it is and you are the one making more out of it than what it is.
robalderson // April 2, 2009 at 3:39 pm |
Completely agree Bob with the point about not everyone in that sector not being culpable, and maybe should have been more careful with the wording. But this man is described as being a “derivatives trader” which suggests he’s fairly high up in the industry. And secondly I do feel these comments will wind people up, and I think that’s why The Sun included them. People wanted to exercise their democratic right to protest against a banking system that has spiralled out of cointrol, and this guy was miffed because he had to change what he usually wore. In the grand scheme of things, this is a minor inconvenience for him, especially compared with those at the sharp end of the downturn struggling to pay their mortgages.
Morgan Green // April 8, 2009 at 11:33 am |
So in fairness your conclusions are based entirely on *your* assumption that all derivatives traders are high up in the industry and *your* feeling that these comments will wind people up.
Not exactly a robust investigation now, is it?
robalderson // April 8, 2009 at 12:04 pm |
I think it’s safe to assume that a city derivatives trader does pretty well and we’re not talking about a lowly bank teller being hammered for the excesses of those much higher up the chain.
I don’t think this blog ever claims to involve “robust investigation” – it’s a blog for me to comment on media trends as I see them.
And with that in mind, then I believe these comments would wind people up.