If a newspaper is a mirror, many readers see in it only a distorted image of themselves. Not long ago we carried a brief report about two people found dead in their home. More than a few of you found your attention distracted from the apparent tragedy by the description of the two as “an elderly couple”, closely followed by the intelligence that they were in their “early 60s”, and with the more specific revelation in another report that they were 61 and 62. The headline said unquestioningly: Elderly couple found dead.
The references were resented on two grounds, first that no one of that age might properly be described as elderly; second, the casual prejudice of the term interfered with the transmission of a few simple and serious facts.
“It might be worth pointing out to your bright and eager young subeditors that those in their early 60s are not really that aged – particularly if they read the Guardian.”
Another wrote: “How old do you have to be to be described as elderly in the Guardian? From my point of view at 64 I would object.”
This is what I term the prejudice of distance, in this case distance over time. It is a prejudice that grows among people whose experience is circumscribed by their generation, with no real relationship outside it.
A report headed “Coach tour pensioners felled by disease” attracted similar complaint. Why, one reader inquired, did we use the word “pensioner” to describe people in their 60s or over when the fact that they draw a pension is not relevant to the story?
“The description ‘pensioner’ has developed certain connotations… you think, don’t you, of a ‘bunch’ of ‘old dears’, ‘buffers’, ‘codgers’. The kind of people you are encouraged to patronise. All these epithets, not least ‘pensioner’, rob people of dignity.”
Granny, to which someone objected a few months ago, might be added to the list. A reader complained of its use in the following heading on an interior design piece in the Weekend magazine: “Floral patterns are back in fashion. But don’t ask your granny for style tips …”
The editor of that page, quite reasonably defending the magazine against any charge of ageism, said this reference was “quite obviously tongue-in-cheek”. More about “tongue-in-cheek” in a minute.
The angriest objection for some time was prompted by a piece in our weekly entertainments magazine, the Guide. The heading sets the scene: You might think film critics have an easy life. Not so… They have weirdos, fights, smelly pensioners and Woody Harrelson movies to deal with.
The Guide’s writer, describing his experience of afternoons in cinemas in New York, said: “Another hazard of attending daytime motion pictures is dealing with addled, cantankerous or garrulous OAPs…” He then relates snatches of conversation. “‘What kind of movie is this?’ continued her husband, who had doubtless taken advantage of the cinema’s early-bird half-price senior citizen’s Alzheimer price…” In another cinema the writer asks an usher about the smell. “That’s the old people… They all just got their coats out of mothballs, so the place smells bad for a few days…”
The reader who complained said: “This is worse than ageism – it’s anti-human… Needless to say we will be taking this further.” (He mentioned the press complaints commission and the Alzheimer’s Disease Society).
There are several points to make about this. It was not a news report. It was an autobiographical piece. Old people were not the only “hazard” the writer described (for instance, he mentioned a crowd of fighting hooligans, and a young couple who disturbed his concentration by copulating in a neighbouring row). The reference to Alzheimer’s was relatively harmless (for a discussion of Alzheimer’s see my column, Bad-taste test: jokes that may cause offence, July 10, 1999 – we are happy to send you a copy if you do not have access to our website). The writer himself was one of the objects of his satire.
It is regrettable that some readers were offended. Does this kind of thing reinforce stereotypes? It probably does, but the writer is describing, rather vividly, a specific seedy environment. In my opinion the offence given by casual slurs in news stories is more serious.
A final word on tongue-in-cheek humour. Several of you (and a colleague) objected, quite understandably, to a recent Pass notes on the candidate for the Chinese leadership Hu Jintao. The column, a satirical one, consisted of little more than punning references to his name. This is prejudice of distance again, out of which we should have grown. It is prejudice increasingly out of place in a small world.
