rejected, complaints about the media wouldn’t have got far. We used to call the Newberry
Weekly News the Newberry Weekly Lies because of all the crap they wrote about us. Coverage
was totally disproportionate to the reality but there were really outrageous examples – the Daily
Mail springs to mind.”
Ippy is not alone in her sentiments. In the Guardian of August 6, 2002, Jane Powell describes
life at the peace camp in the 80s and says: “The media were farcical about Greenham. The
tabloids caricatured us as a bunch of dykes in boots and denim dungarees, while the Guardian
painted us as white, middle-class, woolly-minded liberals. Both of them missed the mark by
miles. It was a dynamic, eclectic mix of women from across the world, of all ages from 14
onwards, with wildly different experiences, who came … for completely different reasons.”
But are the women’s claims of press misrepresentation justified? In terms of discrimination
alone, evidence would suggest they are. Martha Gellhorn, the late veteran US journalist, visited
the peace camp in February 1984. Writing in the Observer Magazine that month, she says:
“These unpretentious women, in their beat-up warm clothes, have become a world-wide symbol
and model for countless ordinary people who say no.”
She goes on to describe the diversity of the women who include a Scottish forester, German
kindergarten teacher, American psychotherapist and hostel worker. She compares the women
with suffragettes, derides Margaret Thatcher and details attacks by male vigilantes. It is an
account of women living collectively and responsibly with a moral purpose.
MORE
PEACE 3
But Brian Vine’s Daily Mail feature, written in June 1984, contrasts sharply. “Sue Hanson, a
sprig of a girl from Mid America’s Heartlands, believes she is more liberated than any of the
Greenham Common women on the other side of the missile fence – both literally and
idealogically. Lieutenant Hanson, a bespectacled blonde, is the only woman in the Cruise
programme in Britain capable of obliterating Leningrad at the touch of a button. ‘My face will
never be as lacking in makeup as theirs…I’m a liberationalist, not a feminist.’ It is also
predicatable they will be deeply upset to discover that the operator in control of Cruise is a
mature life-loving woman who cherishes peace just as much as most of us.”
Gelhorn’s language denotes a broadly supportive woman writing from her own perspective while
using colour and words which reflect what she sees. The tone is respectful and balanced. She
clearly admires the women and to an extent patronises them - describing one as “pretty” - but the
text is not sexist or anti-male. It is responsible and ethical journalism. Vine’s piece contains
standard Mail components. The language is both patronising – “…a sprig of a girl…”, and
macho – “…the only woman…capable of obliterating Leningrad…”. He describes the
servicewoman as a bespectacled blonde, as if in comparison to the average protestor, then steers
the reader towards the cutting quote about faces lacking in makeup and being a liberationalist,
not feminist. The condescending tone is captured perfectly in the last sentence. Taken as a
whole, the article dehumanises the protestors by suggesting they are not real women.
Juley <<correct>> Howard, 36, told the Guardian of August 6, 2002 how at 16 she “had an
image of the women as a bunch of wretches” and had read in the Daily Mail that they pinned
their sanitary towels to the fence. To what extent had gender-biased distortion affected her
impressionable young mind?
MORE
PEACE 4
In a Sun story of December 14, 1982 headlined The Ugly Face of The Sisters of Peace,
reporters Kieran Sanders and Victoria Chapple write: “The ugly face of women’s protest
emerged at Greenham Common yesterday when an anti-nuclear campaign degenerated into a
cruel battle of the sexes. Twelve hours after the 30,000-strong army of concerned housewives
and grandmothers had gone home the police had to battle with the mainly hard-core left-
overs…Police, who played a softly-softly game and made only three arrests, were accused by the
screaming horde of nipple twisting, groping and strong arm tactics…Militant feminists and burly
lesbians were apparently the storm troops in the front line. They were backed by tattooed and
painted faced punks and skinheads who apparently couldn’t tell the difference between a missile
site and a roller disco.”
Here language is used as a weapon against women. The words “ugly face” are used both in the
headline and the intro, close to “sisters” and “women”. The scene is described as a battle of the
sexes, but no evidence is offered. By saying: “…concerned housewives and grandmothers had
gone home…”, the writers somehow suggest home is where these respectable females belong.
They claim police battled with “mainly hard-core left-overs”, implying a fight with scum, then
say officers played a softly-softly game, but faced accusations from the “screaming horde”.
Protestors are labelled as militant feminists and burly lesbians acting as storm troops, without
any evidence whether this is relevant or factual. The women are then ridiculed by claims they
were mixed up over a missile site and a roller disco. Aggressive and confused language is used
here. The tone can be identified as hysterical, anti-female and pro-establishment. A story about a
protest against nuclear weapons with three arrests turns into a tirade against non-conformist
women.
MORE
PEACE 5
However, reportage can be found in the archives which does not resort to gender stereotyping or
inappropriate and unprofessional references to sex or sexual orientation. Unlike the previous
examples lacking the reaction, quotes or right of reply which ethical writers should have granted
the women, some contemporary features are models of responsible journalism. Writing in the
London Standard of December 2, 1981, Yvonne Roberts says: “The ‘mushroom people’ count as
many carnivores among themselves as vegetarians; more women than men; and as few
stereotypes as in the average bus queue. ‘Why did I get involved?’ says Eunice from her home in
the Swansea valley, preparing to return to the camp. ‘I just felt it was such a terrible thing I was
leaving to my descendants. I had to do something. Mind you, at 60, my family all tried to
persuade me I should stay at home and do my knitting. But I’ve never had such a good time’.”
Has the situation improved today? Garry Otton thinks not. The Glasgow-based writer runs
Scottish Media Monitor, an on-line press watchdog which campaigns for gay rights and gender
equality. For the period December 2002 – January 2003, he finds Scotland on Sunday’s Gerald
Warner taking a swipe at the New Year honours list. “Possible titles include the Order of the
Repeal of Section 28 (almost inevitably on a pink ribbon).” Meanwhile, the Scottish News of the
World splashes on pop band manager Tam Paton, who had been convicted of sex offences,
with the headline “Manager’s Evil Lust for The Rollers”. Describing Paton as a “sexual
predator” the paper interviews former band member Pat McGlynn who says Paton tried to rape
him five times. A picture of the obese and balding Paton overshadowed a photo of the teenage,
baby-faced McGlynn. “Everything the paper could have hoped for was captured…reinforcing
the stereotype of a pervert,” Otton comments. Brothers and sisters of the press, it seems we still
have a long way to go.
ENDS
