Monday, October 26, 2009

Some bad journalism on Spain

[This blog was also published at NewsTrust’s News Hunt for Bad Journalism.]

In Jennifer Varela’s piece on a recent anti-abortion march in Madrid, the most important words in this article are:

"The bussing in of representatives from more than 40 countries..."

So, not all of the supposed 1 million people who attended the protest are living in Spain. This means that it does not accurately reflect the opinions of Spaniards, who re-elected the progressive Zapatero a couple of years ago.

This figure of one million at the march is also questionable. Some commentators have estimated that the crowd was closer to 60,000, though judging by the photo’s of the event this seems to me to be on the lower side of the truth.

Equally important is the fact that the journalist who wrote the story (Jessica Varela) is not living in Spain, though I disagree with commenters on the Guardian’s CiF [Comment is Free] pages who have argued that it is also relevant whether Jennifer Varela was born in Spain or not. But if she is not living here [in Spain] which is the case, then this can surely affect how accurate her story is.

A statement in her article that is not correct is her claim that “Zapatero has…taken religion out of state schools.” In fact, his government has made compulsory religion class an option to ‘Ethics’ classes.

Another part of the article that deserves a reply is this section:

the current uproar…reveals a darker truth about the collective Spanish psyche. In politics there will always be the power struggle between left and right, but in Spain, to push too far in either direction drives a sword into the national wound that was never allowed to heal.

This is dramatic language but it is essentially an argument for a national government to do nothing. It also ignores the possibility that the government relaxing abortion laws could actually benefit women’s choices about reproduction.

This part of Varela’s piece is mystifying:

To have a million people marching against a reform that effectively only removes the shame attached to abortion suggests that this has been deemed a push too far.

Who is doing “the deeming?” The church? The opposition conservative party? The supposed million protesters? If this change is in fact “a push too far” then is that because one out of every fourty Spaniards is against it? If so, this is hardly a democratic moment that she is defining.

Varela also makes the odd statement that: “Clearly the dignity of Spanish women was never considered as valuable a commodity as their honour, as it was buried alongside the [Civil] war's more tangible victims.”

Spanish women’s dignity was somehow ‘buried’ in the war? This, I don’t get. To me, if we can say that Spanish women are anything at all, they are generally very dignified (certainly compared to your average Japanese woman who typically still takes an inferior social position relative to men.)

To her credit, Varela has provided many of her sources as links on the CiF pages but The Guardian newspaper publishing pieces of reportage from someone outside of Spain is pretty poor. It is bad editorial decision-making.

This article is mainly well-researched but should never have got to print because there are too many fuzzy statements in it.

2 comments:

Brett Hetherington said...

BrettHeth

One thing to keep in mind is that as I have pointed out elsewhere in the thread, this article did not appear as it was written. Obviously, it was cut for word count.

This is dramatic language but it is essentially an argument for a national government to do nothing.

It is absolutely not an argument for such - it is merely an explanation as to why parts of the population could be viewed as having a disproportional reaction to proposals. One e.g. is the uproar caused over what to do with Lorca's remains - as the article begins - or the hundreds of remains still in mass graves. This all goes back to the 1977 amnesty law and the "pact of forgetting". Giles Tremlett writes extensively about this in Ghosts of Spain.

It also ignores the possibility that the government relaxing abortion laws could actually benefit womens choices about reproduction.

Again, no it doesn't. I am in favour of these reforms because I agree that they will benefit women's choices.

This part of Varelas piece is mystifying:To have a million people marching against a reform that effectively only removes the shame attached to abortion suggests that this has been deemed a push too far.

Who is doing the deeming?

Obviously, the people doing the protesting or they wouldn't have bothered to show up if they didn't feel the need to 'draw a line in the sand' as it were to Zapatero. As the article states, the proposal won't actually change very much in practice. So if that's the case, then why would 1 million people show up to protest? Clearly, they weren't thrilled. I think it was mystifying why people would protest against something that doesn't change much of anything in practice - unless there was more going on beneath the surface.

Varela also makes the odd statement that: Clearly the dignity of Spanish women was never considered as valuable a commodity as their honour, as it was buried alongside the [Civil] war's more tangible victims.

This sentence came directly after the quote from El País: "Francoism deprived victims of their lives or freedom, but never of their dignity."

Frankly, that's a fine piece of rubbish from El País. Francosim many groups of their dignity - especially women - as they were humiliated throughout the regime. So yes, their dignity was buried after the war, only to be reinstated with the transition to democracy. I mean, the only thing left for me to do would be to draw you a flow chart.

And please, the next time you feel the need to denounce me to the journalism police, be sure to get my name right. As lovely as it is, my name is not Jessica, as you referred to me in your piece.

Brett Hetherington said...

The above comments are the journalist, Jennifer Varela's reply to me on The Guardian's CiF page.

Below is my reply at the same site to these comments:

Jennifer,
(Sorry, not Jessica as I mistakenly called you once.)

I sincerely appreciate your detailed response to my own detailed response. I don't think that is too common from most journalists, so I thank you for it. In the interest of balance and fairness I will certainly add your reply to my News Trust article and website.

So your article was cut for a word count? Ah,yes, editors have done this with my paid work and many others too. It is a drag, isn't it?

You said: "I think it was mystifying why people would protest against something that doesn't change much of anything in practice - unless there was more going on beneath the surface."

I think the comment from 'alexito' above deals well with your state of being "mystified"." It's deftly-orchestrated anti-Zapatero politics, and very little to do with the a "darkness in the national psyche" as you claim in the article. As you rightly pointed out, and as I stated in my article, the most important words were about the protesters "being bussed in from 40 different countries." Therefore, very little to do with a strictly Spanish mentality.

I have to say also that I'm surprised that you thought I "felt a need to denounce you to the journalism police." That website of course has no real powers, unlike any police force, but you know that despite your words. There was no "need" for me to do that. I wanted to because I thought there was some poor writing in your piece. You have cleared some of that up in your explanations but not all of it.

As I said in an earlier comment on CiF, I wish you well. You snagged a gig with the Guardian. Good stuff! (Especially for a young journo.) I have learnt from what you have written and, without wishing to be patronising, I hope you learn from mine and others words.

Brett.