The Sun's sympathy for a grieving mother... or simple exploitation?

There can't be anybody in the country who doesn't feel sympathy for Jacqui Janes following the loss of her 20-year-old son to a bomb blast in Afghanistan.

But I'm clearly not the only one questioning the motive and credibility of a tabloid smear campaign against Prime Minister Gordon Brown, apparently sparked by the quality of his handwriting during his correspondence with Janes. (BBC: How does Brown's handwriting compare with other PMs'?)

Janes is clearly angry, upset and understandably looking for somebody to blame for her son's death. But it's almost certainly not Gordon Brown. Or his handwriting.

Political football

Janes appears to have become a political football, particularly in The Sun's ongoing war against both the easy target of Brown's public image and the less readily arrested issues of its own circulation. That is a sad legacy to the tragedy she has endured. 

I don't doubt the Sun would defend its motives as seeking justice for our brave troops and their families. But for me the coverage of this issue reads like circulation-chasing exploitation of a grieving mother and leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

Comments

[Nadia Saint]

I agree.

I imagine Jacqui Janes was sold an opportunity to protest about equipment shortages and inadequate training in the army.

She ended up being used as the face of what many see as a bullying campaign against a partially sighted man.

[Martin Belam]

Publishing the complete phone call on the web also breaches Clause 10 of the PCC Code of Conduct. The Sun can invoke a 'public interest' defence which over-rides this clause, but, instead of the newspaper regulator asking them to justify their breach, as usual, when I raised it with the PCC I was fobbed off for not personally being Gordon Brown.

[Will Sturgeon]

Great comment Martin, it did dawn on me that News International would do well to steer clear of questionable mobile phone recordings at the moment.

Not that the PCC appears to be too concerned about such matters either.

[J.T.]

I think it's a real shame that Jacqui Janes has been used in this way.

I don't imagine she's really been able to give it much thought and I imagine the journalists from the Sun make a good argument. Before she knows it, she's abdicated far too much responsibility for her voice to their paper and it's snowballed.

Or perhaps helping to perpetuate this media circus is a welcome distraction for her. It may save asking tougher questions as to who's really to blame for the death of her son.

Why was her son fighting in a controversial and unjustifiable war? Why are UK troops there at all, on both an armed forces and an individual level?

Why is the media's carefully spun line about troops being 'ill-equipped' not being challenged, when the Taliban soldiers defending their country and ideology against an invading force are hardly better equipped?

Perhaps the Sun would like to answer that one or, I'm sorry to say, explain its assertion that these young men are heroes. They may be very brave, they may be innocently naive, they may be blindly loyal to a cause they don't question but the tabloids branding them heroes doubtless perpetuates the idea among innocent, unwitting young men that they should sign up without thought to the lies they are being spun by the tabloids and those who inform them.

Those are the questions which should be addressed and if the Sun really cared about the death of soldiers such Jamie Janes it would ask them and put its undoubted clout behind attempts to get troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Instead it discusses Gordon Brown's handwriting and personal faults - a sad indictment of the Sun's willingness to put the boot into a man who is already defeated and score cheap, bullying points for no purpose rather than say or do anything more meaningful or honourable.

It is a real shame a young man's death will be inextricably linked with such shameless posturing by journalists massaging their own egos by attempting to bring down a Prime Minister who was defeated long before he even took over the role.

[Chie Elliott]

Great post, Will. And my feelings are the same as J.T. above.

As I feel very strongly about this topic, I decided to write a blog in response. Here's what I think: http://madamedotty.blogspot.com/2009/11/its-sun-wot-lost-plot.html

[malcolm coles]

After 7 attempts, I have managed to fill out the complaint form at the Information Commissioner's Office.
The PCC may not investigate - but the Sun have broken the law if they have facilitated reproducing this private conversation, so the ICO ought to investigate...

[Sarah Lafferty]

The Sun hasn't scored such a shocking own goal since their lamentable coverage of the Hillsborough disaster. What a disgrace.

[Ian]

I agree with JT and think the Sun has totally sullied the memory and memorial of Jamie Janes. I don't agree with the war either and think soldiers should vote with their conscience, not blind allegiance, but what the Sun has done here lacks no honour or dignity at all and furthermore has stolen some of both from a grieving mother who didn't know better.

[Cheap SEO]

2 issues here - the Sun taking advantage and possibly the mother getting it a bit wrong. The Prime Ministers intentions was good. The Sun has spectacularly blown up on this - what a mess.