Imogen Thomas: vixen, victim or symptom of the disease?

Shining star, or burnt out?

Over the past few weeks there have been two main themes in the tabloids: the right royal wedding (aka Pippa Middleton's bum) and the right royal scandal of the Ryan Giggs-Imogen Thomas affair. Both stories suggest peculiarly British traits of media consumption - like our soap operas suggest, we are obsessed with other people's dirty laundry and, as if we have never grown beyond our collective Carry On film phase, we are obsessed with boobs and bums and all things so mundanely and so Britishly bawdy.

Ryan Giggs cheated on his wife with a glamour model. This tit-bit of intrigue is now public property, and it seemingly takes precedent over his twenty year career at the absolute peak of English football. Our future monarch has a new wife - we have a new potential queen - but what matters is that her sister is well fit.

As Pippa Middleton has done nothing to attract such attention (other than happening to have a sister who married a prince and happening to have a rather nice bottom), let's leave her out of this debate. Let's focus instead on Miss Thomas. To the anonymous death-threateners from cyberspace, she is an abhorrent slut. A home-wrecker. A fame-hungry whore. That, of course, is only one side of the argument. The other extremity is that she is the victim. Used by Giggs. Persecuted by the society that created her, and all those other wannabes like her. The truth, as ever, probably lies somewhere in the middle.



Charlotte Jackson

 Yes, her moral code appears to be somewhere roughly around the gutter - but is that her fault? Allow me to preempt various possible feminist readings of this story here: Imogen Thomas is symptomatic of British culture. She is a victim of a male-driven media's lust for flesh. Only women who sexualise themselves can 'get anywhere' in the pop-culture. These points are valid. In a previous post, I commented on how Sky Sports'  presenters include an overly high proportion of attractive young women (such as Charlotte Jackson, who was at the centre of the Andy Gray sacking furore). Miriam O'Reilly, at that time, won a landmark case for feminism and age equality. Since then she has been rehired by the BBC to film a documentary about herself and, it seems, very little else. She is not sexy enough for Prime Time TV - Jackson and co. are the future.

But it is not enough to write off Thomas, in broad, structuralist terms, as a victim of society. She is an individual. She makes her own decisions. She has at least some input in to the path she treads. She chose to appear on Big Brother - which brought her in to the public eye - and chose to pose in Lads Mags and to date sports stars: Ryan Giggs was not the first. The reason for these choices lies in the previous paragraph - she felt she had to do this if she wanted to 'get anywhere' in show-business. This is indeed symptomatic of a culture in which 'stars' are born without any discernible talent and hyped up to the supernova of fame, before burning out, breaking down and, ultimately, disappearing.



Sex sells

This is a societal disease, that much is true. The afore-mentioned blog featuring Charlotte Jackson included a picture sourced from Bing Images, of Miss Jackson in a rather revealing bikini. That image has generated more traffic to this site than any other article, picture, link or tag. Some five months after it was posted, there are still more weekly visitors to that picture than there are to the rest of the site combined. The Bing Images pictures in this post will probably do the same - of course, I would probably rather have people actually reading the blog but, hey, that's life! In modern media, it seems, sex sell more than ever.

Nevertheless, Thomas could have chosen another path. She could have become a teacher, a doctor, a lawyer or anything else she wanted, or, if access to the requisite education was not available to her, she could have gone to work in a bar or an office or a factory. The problem is simple: everyone wants to be famous. Great artists and honest professional alike hone their skills, not for the pursuit of the fame but for the love of their endeavour. Thomas does not even have any skills to hone, only her mortal body, which will age and wither and ultimately die. She has already had a boob-job to improve its longevity. But how long can she deny the tide of age? She is young and beautiful now, and lives on that. What will she do when she is Miriam O'Reilly's age?

Unlike Charlotte Jackson, Thomas doesn't have a craft. While Jackson's looks may have propelled her career, she is also good at her job. She is a trained professional. As such, her star may yet shine brightly beyond the glamour of her youth. Thomas is not even talented enough, or hard-working enough, for that - she simply makes her money through column inches and professional self-exposure.




Stony-faced

It must be horrible to be hated by strangers - even more so because, on a purely human level, married-man Giggs is far more at fault than she is. But this is the life Imogen Thomas chose - fame, wealth and the adulation and derision that constitutes modern-day celebrity. This is the path she chose. That is why it is hard to feel sorry for her when she sobs her way through morning television shows, or looks stony-faced outside the court-room. She didn't have it coming. She doesn't deserve it. But she did go out and get it.



Crocodile tears, or genuine remorse?

Even if the tears are genuine (about which I am, at best, dubious), perhaps she weeps because she realises that she has made her own bed, with some very famous notches on the post, and now she has to lie in it. Perhaps she realises that her amoral, materially-driven life is not the ticket to happiness she once thought. Perhaps she wishes she was just a bar-maid in a Welsh local, with a nice, normal boyfriend, wedding plans and a future based on more old-fashioned notions of contentedness: family and friends, a stable home-life and just enough money to get by on.

******************************************************************************

Oh, and for those of you who have accidentally stumbled across this site whilst looking for pics of lovely Imogen, and can't really be bothered with distractions like words and thoughts and general opinion-making, here's some more tits. And Pippa Middleton's bum. Enjoy!

Official: The Beeb is ageist. And sexist too!

Miriam O'Reilly: Activist?

Yep. The BBC discriminates against older women.

That's the verdict of the employment tribunal which has ruled that Miriam O'Reilly - the former Countryfile presenter - was unfairly sacked and replaced by a younger model.

It seems pretty black and white, particularly as several other older female presenters were removed at the same time, and replaced in exactly the same manner. The BBC appears to have acted unfairly, and the ruling will be widely celebrated. The journalist and presenter (and apparent spokesperson for the rights of older women) Mariella Frostrup called it a "landmark decision."

The BBC themselves, bound by their forcibly induced political correctness, have unreservedly apologised and even swiftly promised to discuss re-employing Ms O'Reilly.

It was interesting to watch Channel 4's take on events. As a rival firm, you might think that C4 would want to stick the boot in, but instead they produced both sides of the story - it would have been nice to see the BBC do the same, but their response was a limp, cap-in-hand apology:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12161045

Read (BBC correspondent) Torin Douglas's analysis on the right hand side - he states the company line: the BBC will change it's employment policy on the basis of the O'Reilly case, and he believes the rest of the industry will follow suit.

There's a sub-text here, buried deep in the lower paragraphs of the BBC article. Jay Hunt, their former controller (and a 43 year-old woman) resents the accusations against the BBC. Through this vicarious and carefully gender-marked defence, the writer is hinting at what he really wants to write.... that this tribunal is a bit of a sham.

The BBC can't say it, but those outside of the corporation can.

Nick Ross: Pragmatist?

In Channel 4's report, Nick Ross (a man who also was replaced by the BBC when he passed his sell-by date) said that this was something TV Presenters just had to accept. He pointed out that most presenters work on what is effectively a freelance basis and, as a result, they have little job security. He spoke of his time presenting Crimewatch as a privelege which he missed, and was disappointed to have lost, but also said that he accepted it was the nature of the business.

These views are not the company line. They are not politically correct - they also happen to be true. Television and other media are driven by consumption. Decisions about programming, including presenters, are made to ensure that stations get as much of the viewing figures as they can. That is the nature of the beast.

Even more controversially, Ross turned the gender-debate tables on younger women, brazenly stating that "not many mingers" get the prime jobs. Attractive younger women, he argues, are actually advantaged over their male counterparts, and no-one is complaining about that.

Good on you Nick - another politically incorrect comment, and another one that is spot on. Try watching Sky Sports News, and tell me that attractive young women don't get prime jobs in television.  

Jackson, Sawyer and Thompson: "Not mingers"

Sky, of course, know that their target audience would rather see Charlotte Jackson, Natalie Sawyer or Georgie Thompson telling them about football than an.... erm.... Miriam O'Reilly-type. Your average Sky Sports News viewer might not be that fussed about the quality of the journalism (which is usually pretty slick, as it happens).

Of course this is wrong. Reward should be based on merit, not on superficiality. But TV isn't the only culprit here - it happens in all walks of life. Attractive people (yes, women and men) do have an advantage in any recruitment process. That, unfortunately, is human nature.

You can but hope that, in the real world, looks wouldn't be a defining factor in giving someone a job. But TV isn't the real world. It's a visual medium. Like cinema, photography and any visual art it depends, by its most basic nature, on what it looks like. That's what it is and that's why I think the BBC have been hard done by.

Sky, on the other hand, are a commercial business, privileged to not be bound by the same public-service code as the BBC. Would they change their recruitment policy in the name of equality? No chance. Maybe they could follow another course of action though. Perhaps they could scapegoat some high-profile presenters in some sort of stand against sexism? Surely they wouldn't stoop so low. Oh, hang on.....

Gray and Keys: Sexist?

Yep, the Andy Gray and Richard Keys scandal. The pair shared a conversation expressing some politically incorrect, sexist views. Perhaps they thought the conversation was private, and that their microphones were switched off. Perhaps they are, like anyone else, entitled to their opinions? But unfortunately for them, a media circus and moral panic ensued. Both presenters were warned about their conduct.

Then, footage emerged of some 'sexist' banter, in which Gray asked Charlotte Jackson to help him attach his microphone pack down his trousers. Now I must say that if this was a sackable offence in my office, we would all (men and women alike) be heading for the Job Centre. Innuendo at work is commonplace and, in most cases, harmless. But, in the context of the media storm, it was enough to get Gray sacked. Immediately. Without review.


Charlotte Jackson: Sex object?

Other Sky presenters might be nervously wondering what a cursory glance through the archives might find them being accused of. There's an inevitable laddish culture on shows like Soccer Saturday - and the likes of Paul Merson are hardly angels. Soccer AM features a weekly Soccerette. Is it not sexist when the presenter flirts with her, or when the whole studio celebrate or commiserate depending on whether she has a boyfriend or not? Perhaps the female presenters who bolster their careers by posing in Lads Mags, including Miss Jackson, should be sacked for reinforcing the view of women as sex objects?

Of course, this won't happen. There is no agenda for sacking Paul Merson and co. The Soccerette feature and the Lads Mag shoots are considered a bit of fun (whether this is right or wrong is another debate in itself).

Paul Merson: Not sexist?

There's no £1.7m contract to consider, as there was apparently in the Andy Gray case. And why should Sky address institutionalised or culturally embedded sexism when it can get away with vilifying one or two presenters? Gray and Keys were getting long in the tooth anyway - like Miriam O'Reilly - but with their reputations in tatters there will be no employment tribunal for them. They can match O'Reilly's just claim that 20 years of loyal (not to mention pioneering and award-winning in Gray and Keys' case) service demands better treatment. But it is a futile argument for them. Their careers are over, but Sky Sports will come through all of this unscathed and move on, with its artistic license and editorial discretion in tact.

For the BBC though, there has now come a point where political correctness and self-denial begin to overlap. The corporation will follow a course of action which it would not have done before. O'Reilly will probably find herself back on prime-time TV, and some other, equally innocent and perhaps equally competent presenter, who might be a bit younger and/or more attractive, will find themselves out of a job as a result.

If the Beeb's interpretation of their audience's needs were correct, then viewers who are turned off by O'Reilly will literally turn off. They'll watch something else instead, and the BBC will be powerless to stop them.

The commercial channels will be rubbing their hands with glee - enjoying their freedom and profit while the BBC continues to be hamstrung by their enforced sense of diplomacy.

Perhaps the BBC would be able to produce a better standard of show to compete with the commercial channels if it didn't have to ensure all age, gender, race and religious aspect of multi-cultural Britain are "fairly" represented (the truth being tokenism rather than fairness).

But we do live in a country where even Nick Ross' comments immediately provoked anger - God help the man for having an opinion.

John Snow: Sexist?

John Snow closed the Channel 4 News coverage by reading out an e-mail deriding his own presenting ability and his alleged sexist banter with Ross.

"Sack Snow," read the e-mail.

Not because of his age. Not because of his gender. No. Sack him because he presided over a balanced analysis of a controversial subject, including points of views both for (Frostrup) and against (Ross) the verdict. Sack him because he dared to allow Ross to question the view that someone our society categorises as marginalised must automatically be in the right.

Were it to happen, I wonder what an employment tribunal might make of that sacking? Would Snow be backed? Would he win a "landmark" case?

Sadly, I doubt it.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5