The Mail vs. Facts: The Daily Struggle
By Abbas Panjwani
By Robin Anderson
Elitists vote against elitism… despite being, according to one comment on the Daily Mail website, ‘students whose intellect struggled to obtain nothing more than an NVQ in shifting muck from an elephant enclosure’. It’s hard not to notice that there’s something of a contradiction in that statement.
This is just the first of many simple errors in the Daily Mail’s account of a recent Keble JCR debate over whether to place a portrait of Elizabeth II in the JCR in recognition of her service to the UK.
I think a few points of fact need to be outlined in relation to the Mail’s account. Sadly, this is yet another example of the biased, sensationalist reporting typical of tabloid journalism, with little to no root in reality.
Regarding the assertion that the motion was rejected because the Queen was ‘born into privilege’: quite why this ‘quote’ is placed in ‘quotation marks’ is unclear. No one present at the meeting is quite sure because, as the minutes attest, it simply was not said. This also true of the reported comments ‘The Royal family do nothing but sit on their backsides and wave at people’ and ‘They have never had to work in their lives and just live off their ancestor’s money’. Now, tabloid journalism is famous for, ahem, being economical with the facts. However, the invention of quotes contravenes pretty much any definition of ‘reporting’ that I am aware of. That type of writing is called ‘Fiction’; you can find more compelling examples of it in most libraries.
We then come to the section which seems to have provoked almost as much indignant braying from a misled Mail readership as Keble’s imaginary republicanism. Concerning the mysterious ‘Worcester student’: as far as I know, when a journalist uses a statistic, he is expected to take it from a reliable source. Quoting a statistic prefaced by ‘I’d Say’ would usually set a few alarm bells ringing regarding the utility of the following statement. The comment ‘considering the intake at Keble’, followed by the estimate that ’90 percent of the students at that college are born into rich families’ implies that it is a fact that the majority of Keble’s population are from ‘rich’ backgrounds. Yet another example of the Mail’s bizarre approach to fact. Here are some facts:
Keble provides a total of £141,000 in income-assessed support annually, over and above the central Oxford Opportunities Bursaries and means-tested government support grants.
- Roughly 100 students receive needs-based support per year. There are currently 410 undergraduates at Keble. Thus, nearly 25% of Keble students receive some kind of financial support. Government maintenance grants are given to students with a household income of £42,600 per year. Thus, a substantial proportion of Keble students are from lower income backgrounds, while a further percentage are in financial need whilst attending the College.
- Current JCR Access & Academic Affairs Officer, Sarah Herdan, was recently highly commended at the University Vice-Chancellor’s Civic Awards for her work in Access.
- The Worcester College Access Rep, Hollie Higgins, when asked for her opinion, commented: ‘I was sorry to read the recent comments from a Worcester student regarding Keble. Generalisations like this not only fail to reflect the huge diversity that can be found in any Oxford College, but also ignore and serve to undermine the tireless Access and Outreach work that each College does.’
Now we’ve got that cleared up, let’s move on to the murky heart of this (to be kind) poorly-researched article. Apparently, the motion was rejected because the Queen was ‘born into privilege’. Had the Mail done their research they would have known that this was not the case. The opening statement of the opposition was that this wasn’t about the merits of the monarchy. This wasn’t about privilege, this wasn’t about elitism and it certainly wasn’t about republicanism. It was a point of principle about the JCR as a bi-partisan, impartial and apolitical space; a space representing all Keble students, regardless of nationality or political persuasion. Giving recognition to one socio-political figure over any other marks the space with a particular socio-political character, especially a figure metonymic of such a contentious body as the Monarchy. As recorded by the minutes, one student commented ‘Rightly or wrongly a lot of people will think the Queen will approximate something they agree or disagree with and I think having her on the wall will make some people feel uncomfortable.’
If the criteria under which an individual would be selected for recognition is indeed to be ‘service to the nation’ (as was the proposition), then, as another Keble student remarked during the debate, ‘Where is the recognition for the millions of teachers, social workers and others who have serviced the nation?’. It is not as if Keble has not recognized the Jubilee in a number of ways, including a Jubilee Hog Roast event, Matins service, the flying of the Union Jack and Jubilee decorations in many public spaces of the College. As many of the opponents of the motion happily pointed out, they support the monarchy. However, if Keble is to be as accessible and open as possible, the very first place students see when they arrive and the place in which their views are to be heard should not cue them toward any ideological stance whatsoever, whether that be one of nationalism, patriotism or otherwise.
If anything, the charge of promoting elitism should be laid at the feet of the Daily Mail. It is propagating and perpetuating myths based on prejudice and falsehoods which are continually reinforcing the barriers between the underprivileged and institutions like Oxford, demeaning and destroying the achievements and efforts of those dedicated to ensuring that this university is open to all.
ed9158
04/06/2012 at 16:55
Good article, but could do with an editor.
lad
04/06/2012 at 18:26
Good article but if you’re looking for examples of “the biased, sensationalist reporting typical of tabloid journalism, with little to no root in reality”, just look at the Oxstu next time.
Ry
04/06/2012 at 20:07
The point, here, is not so much the fact that the article is sensationalist.
Rather, the problem is that the Mail knowingly and maliciously distort and ignore the facts that are inconvenient to their editorial line on Oxbridge. It wasn’t “poorly researched” at all – many of the Mail’s hacks *are* Oxbridge grads (it’s very important not to forget this), and they know full well what the facts are. They just make the facts fit the story, rather than vice versa.
SE
04/06/2012 at 23:56
Ironic that this article is in the OxStu given its assessment of the Jesus College JCR motion on female empowerment in previous editions…
Tom Oakley
08/06/2012 at 09:16
Good article, although one more point worth mentioning – the proposed portrait was to cost 200 quid.
Regardless of what the painting was of, the JCR is right to question whether spending that sort of money on a painting is the best use of their funds.
But of course in Daily Mail world this is high treason. What’s particularly amusing is that the reporting didn’t really seem to suggest that all Oxford colleges should have bought themselves a painting of the queen, but seeing as someone at Keble suggested it then they basically should have all voted yes to the proposal.
Farcical.
Sam Tusk
13/06/2012 at 17:04
Out of curiosity, are you implying that a household income below £42,600 is a “lower income background”?
Lets say that works out as about 30k after tax(?). A quick trip to wikipedia suggests that if your family income is more than about £30k after tax & benefits, then that puts you in the top 25% earning households.
Don’t misunderstand, I hate the DM, but your inferences are only slightly less dogy than thier own, and you’re embaressingly proving thier point that oxford students are generally from families which are much more well off than the average…
Robin Anderson
18/06/2012 at 15:00
‘a quick trip to wikipedia’ actually came up with the following:: ‘ average net household income (after tax) stood at £38,547.00′. Given that means tested government grants are allocated according to pre-tax figures, this would place any recipient of a government grant either at the average household income or below – hence ‘students from lower income backgrounds’, ‘lower’ generally meaning ‘lower than average’.
It appears that the dodgy inferences are your own, Mr Tusk.
And as for referring to the Mail’s analysis as ‘inference’, I think ‘fabrications’ would be more apt.
Sam Tusk
18/06/2012 at 16:15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom
[ See the table under "Post Tax household income." As I said, £30k+ puts you in the top 25% or so of incomes. Admittedly those numbers are from 2006 so you can inflate them a little, but even so, I'm not sure what you're getting at: its entirely consistant to say the MEAN household income (which is what you quoted) is well above that level. The MEDIAN income after tax is given as £26k, which is below it. Which works fine: the income distribution is very skewed. ]
Its perfectly technically fine to define £38k the average household income, and its not objectively wrong to call any household income below that “lower income.” But *is* dumb, and not what your typical person would take the term to mean! By that definition, the vast majority of households would be “lower income”, which makes it not a very useful definition. I’d also dispute that people take “lower income” to mean “lower than average.” Certainly not lower than the mean. Got to leave some space for “middle income”! You dont call everyone below average hight “short”, I’d have thought? Especially not when youre in a group of people most of whom are 6ft, except a small number who are 7ft tall, such that you have to class almost everyone as “short”.
…but I think you missed my point. Anybody with below average income (by *either* definition) should be indeed recieving a grant, along with plenty with above average income. Taking the income distribution from 2006, and guestimating that 42k before tax gets reduced to 30k after tax, around 75% of households should be below this level. You can reduce that a bit to account for inflation, and my tax estimate is probably way off. But the point is that if Oxford students came from a proportional sample of households, we’d expect a large majority to be recieving some sort of grants. If *only* 25% of students are getting anything, that suggests a hugely disproportionate income distribution: 75% of students are presumably in the top 25% of household incomes*. Plenty of people would call that “rich.” (Although the DMs figure of 90% is, indeed, pushing the definition of “rich” to limits as extreme as your definition as “lower income”.)
*Except you need to factor in overseas students, which makes things much more complicated. And my numbers are very roughy anyway. But seriously, I don’t see any way from those numbers for Oxford students not to be disproportionately more well off than one would expect. Which is why I say that by mentioning the 25% figure you’re embaressingly proving the point that the DM was trying to make, unsubstantiated though it was.
And I’m sorry, but nobody from a normal background thinks that £40k is a ‘low income’. Somebody from a council estate is going to be just as alienated by statements like that from Oxford students as they are by the crap in the DM. Fortunately, I don’t suppose they’re going to be reading the OxStu.
Robin Anderson
18/06/2012 at 18:50
A comprehensive piece of stats analysis, certainly something the Mail could do with in their approach to Oxbridge, if only to give their articles an ounce of credibility.
Bearing your points in mind, I realise that ‘lower income’ implies a more variegated demographic than ‘below average’.
However, I resent the implication that this article tries to present Oxford as a representative slice of national income distribution, as, as you so frequently reiterate, only a truly naive and idiotic person would attempt to do so.
I also resent the associated implication that I was deliberately disingenuous in quoting these figures.
In stating that a substantial portion of Keble’s population receive income support, I believe that my point still stands: that Oxford is not solely populated by the privileged. I don’t think any OxStu reader, statistician or patronisingly objectified ‘council estate’ denizen, is under the illusion that Oxford is not disproportionately populated by the wealthy. However, I believe there is a world of difference between spurious and provocatively worded estimates of ’90% rich kids’, and an honest, if underwhelming, statement that a number of students are not from ‘rich’ backgrounds, but from average or lower income backgrounds.
Your problem seems to lie with the facts themselves, not really my use of them. It is an unpleasant truth that the majority of Oxford students are financially privileged, but I ask you, what would you prefer? To have the Mail disseminate vicious lies and ensure that many will view Oxbridge as *solely* the place of the wealthy, or to have the facts (insufficient though they are)out there? That this is NOT the case, that there is not some kind of financial criterion predicating entry and that those who need support will get it.
While I appreciate your clarification of the definition of ‘lower income’, I would ask you to consider the issue at large. The continued ideological assault upon higher education by the DM and associates seriously undermines widening access efforts. The only appropriate response is to dismiss the fatuous elements, and respond with the truth, in context. To simply say ’25% of Keble students receive income support’ is, as you seem to relish pointing out, not particularly impressive. But what it does say is that the Mail’s whitewash hatchet jobs are wrong, particularly in context of the rest of the points I make highlighting the tireless work of access and the admirable level of support available to those who need it.
While I admire your pedantry, I fail to see what you have achieved aside from to point out that ‘quite a lot of people at Oxford are rich’. Congrats.
Sam Tusk
19/06/2012 at 01:03
Obviously, the facts are as they are and I’m not suggesting anybody should hide them. But as I said, when you call anything under £42,000 a ‘lower income background’, it is alienating. This is the main thing I mean to address, really. Where I come from (which is what I would regard as a very middle class village), I’d see 40k or so as about the maximum reasonable income a household might have. So when I read that statement, what it makes me think is “Wow, people in oxford are so rich that they think my family is poorly off*, even when I thought I was pretty privileged. Clearly I don’t belong there, it’s like they’re from a whole different world.” Genuinely, I think this sort of thing is just as off-putting to potential applicants as worries about finances are: the worry that it’s going to be very socially exclusive and you won’t fit in there.
*I realise this is not what you said, but this is how “low income” reads to most people, I would say. It certainly doesn’t read as something which should include the majority of incomes. I genuinely mean no personal offence, but if you can call 40k a low income, it makes you look out of touch with the real world and how ‘ordinary’ people live. And that’s why it’s striking and I mention it, because you’re unwittingly reinforcing the DM view of those at Oxford as being very privileged, even as you’re trying to do the opposite. (With perfectly good intentions, I realise!)
You say the DM “implies that it is a fact that the majority of Keble’s population are from ‘rich’ backgrounds.”, as if its a preposterous idea. Before coming to Oxford, my personal conception of ‘rich’ didn’t start all that far above £40k, by which definition I’m not sure the above statement is so preposterous, even if the 90% thing is.
“ To simply say ’25% of Keble students receive income support’ is, as you seem to relish pointing out, not particularly impressive. But what it does say is that the Mail’s whitewash hatchet jobs are wrong”.
But it also says that there is some element of truth to the DM insinuation of Oxford being dominated by the well off. You are correct: everybody knows this is the case. But it still stood out (to me) that you made no mention of it. The article did indeed read to me like you were implying there wasn’t a hugely disproportionate distribution of students’ income backgrounds at Oxford. I perhaps misread this: I’m sorry if that offends.
I apologise if I’ve been overly aggressive, or suchlike. I don’t question your intentions; merely your understanding of what the data means.
[ I might be a little personally oversensitive to this sort of thing: I've been told at Oxford that
"£40k family income is *well* below the poverty line"
"Housing's really cheap up north, so I'd guess the average house price in Stoke is ~£1m?"
"Wow, how can you not know anybody with a family income above 150k? I don't know anyone with a family income *below* 150k!"
(Etc etc)
By separate people on separate occasions, entirely seriously, and it is galling. I'm kind of used to it now, and obviously its a reflection on the british class system rather than Oxford. But I know full well that if I had heard such things before coming to Oxford, it would have (rightly or wrongly) put me off applying much more than any dubious statistics I'd read in the Daily Mail.]
Robin Anderson
19/06/2012 at 11:54
I understand your point, and, as I said, I should have phrased my reference to income more precisely. The section in question read ‘a substantial proportion of Keble students are from lower income backgrounds, while a further percentage are in financial need whilst attending the College.’ While this does cover everyone under this bracket, from those whose household income is substantially below the median and those who are, relative to the national average, very comfortable, I should have phrased this more precisely and demonstrated that I was certainly not under the impression that a household income under £40,000 was abnormally low. I hope that you understand that this was an issue of phrasing, not ivory tower ignorance. Not wanting to go into the details, but I’m personally well aware of what constitutes well-off.
I actually appreciate you calling me up on this, as I can’t argue with the fact that it would have alienated you had you read this. And as for some of the quotes you gave on your experiences, christ,I really do apologise if you inferred the same level of naivety from the article.
Catcum
06/09/2012 at 22:49
welcome to the real world, mate. everyone’s a cunt with amazingly low ethical standards while preaching about it to everyone else. i think that’s probably what Jesus was trying to sort out