Reader’s Responses: The Boar Issue 7 cover

The last eighteen months has seen the centralisation in public conversation of the media’s profound influence on public opinion. From the Brexit referendum to the election of Donald Trump to the ‘fake news’ scandals of 2017, media outlets have been scrutinised for their partisan journalism and their ability to obscure or illuminate information to produce more exciting or newsworthy stories. While these processes are by no means new, the lack of accountability of news outlets has propelled them to the very heart of wider conversations concerning truth and objectivity in the public eye.

The content and the imagery simply do not match, leading to a false narrative of union organisation

While The Boar is not a global media outlet, nor does its infrastructure demand profitability, its most recent front page fell victim to the same indignities of larger news organisations. Though reporting on the peaceful upcoming UCU strike action, the front cover displays a militant, masked figure wielding a pink-coloured smoke bomb. The content and the imagery simply do not match, leading to a false narrative of union organisation. This is a disgraceful act of misrepresentation, one that entailed little critical self-reflection from the editorial team before publication, and no remorse or admission of fault after.

The front page is injurious to the content of the report itself

The natural response to this should be to read the report itself to correct any misunderstanding. However, after this opener, the content of the article itself becomes immaterial. The headline itself, which claims that the strike will ‘threaten lectures and seminars’, alongside the imagery, have already laid claim to a biased narrative. The front page is injurious to the content of the report itself. Furthermore, to all those who see the front page everyday without reading the content, only one side of the narrative is represented, and a false image of union action is conveyed.

The Boar claims to provide objective and unprejudiced content. But this front cover is nothing short of fake news.

Finn Halligan

Issue 7 of The Boar ran with the headline: “Warwick on the brink of strikes: Walkouts in February and March threaten lectures and seminars”, with a prominent and striking image of a hooded black figure holding a flare, accompanying it. The Warwick Globalist responded to the article, and the misleading image, as being “highly prejudiced against union action”, as well as being focused too closely on disruption to students, as opposed to the impact on lecturer’s if their pensions scheme changed. Their concluding grievance is that The Boar could be pushing student opinion towards an unfavourable opinion of the strikes.

Admittedly, I too was sceptical about the choice. It was clearly used for its impact

First, let’s discuss the image. Admittedly, I too was sceptical about the choice. It was clearly used for its impact; an ominous figure for an ominous few weeks ahead of us. And yes, it might be leaning towards a critical view of striking because this figure looks disruptive and menacing. Yet, couldn’t any reader, with an ounce of common sense, dismiss these thoughts entirely when they go on to read the actual article? Even the most basic understanding of this strike would reveal that we won’t be facing “active danger”, but huge disruption.

At most, the title of Issue 7 of The Boar could be judged as being a little ‘click-bait-y’. However, I believe it is important that the disruptive element of the strikes be highlighted. If the student community doesn’t feel the force of the strike, and mobilise in favour of their lecturers, how will they get the pensions they deserve? 

Has this Globalist writer actually read and re-read the article before making their statement, or have they simply had a knee-jerk reaction against the image?

Additionally, any claim that the article was more focused on the impact to students, than on why the lecturers were striking, is a little unfounded. Issue 7 of The Boar clearly and consistently supports the strikes if change is to be had, while quoting those in favour of the strikes. Other than the title, I cannot find an ounce of reporting on the actual impact it will have on students (apart from one quote). It begs the question, has this Globalist writer actually read and re-read the article before making their statement, or have they simply had a knee-jerk reaction against the image?

I am not claiming that the Boar should never receive criticism, or discussions of this kind should not be instigated. The virtues of journalism are its open-mindedness and ability to create forums for discussion and debate. Publications should hold each other accountable, but this shouldn’t be a contest of where slip-ups are pointed at and highlighted consistently.

Although being a student publication doesn’t mean standards shouldn’t be maintained, the Boar is consistently brilliant with its coverage and its hard work. Mistakes are inevitable and slip through cracks. Attacking these mistakes can, sometimes, be counterproductive to the camaraderie that the student publication world should strive to obtain.

Hazal Kirci