This long Easter Weekend has been a bombardment of messaging instructing the ‘masses’ of the necessity of staying home. This is a necessary, if not somewhat condescending, message to the vast majority of people abiding by social distancing rules. One group that has consistently flouted the new laws is the paparazzi, which has been in overdrive, snapping dozens of celebrities on their one daily outing. This is not important journalism serving the public interest: rather, it is meaningless trite that instead sends conflicting messages to its readership. It isn’t one rule for the famous and another for us. The British right-wing tabloid press has dominated COVID-19 discourse. It is now recklessly continuing the intrusion of celebrities: it is free to chastise others and never responsible for unwarranted and dangerous photographic stories.

I reckon most university students wouldn’t be caught dead admitting to sneakily going on the slowly buffering and sexist Daily Mail, but sometimes when following breaking news, you do. Many newspapers across the world, mostly tabloids, have continued to publish their go-to reality stars pictured out and about flaunting their figures and whatnot. Frequently featured are close-up shots in Central London. From only a few metres away, these shots suggest a collusion with the press, whose coverage defines celebrities without a career. Further, it shows how paps are taking risks, namely with that of their health and the health of others. The act of travelling and lurking in celebrity hotspots needlessly breaks justified distancing rules just to fill a pointless inch of the Mail’s sidebar of shame.

The Daily Mail may not be the highest-selling paper in the UK, though its online presence is dominant internationally, with refined markets in Australia and the US. I would like to assume that no celebrities are risking innocent civilians by purposefully engaging with the paparazzi and papers. Conversely, there are clear examples of notable fame-shunning stars who continue to be harassed in the midst of a pandemic. Rupert Grint and Georgia Groome, both known for avoiding attention, had their pregnancy reported on, with invasive pictures to accompany the story. The happy couple should not have been harassed, and it demonstrates that celebrities still face privacy issues even during a crisis where safety should be prioritised over views.

The argument that celebrities do not face the same issues as the wider public during the COVID-19 pandemic is gaining traction. We should be arguing that the press is failing the public by whipping up animosity and snapping celebs tottering around to show us their privilege. No one needs reminding that having a second home is a blessing. Twitter storms have characteristically blown up about household names like Kirsty Alsop retreating to their second home. However, this does not by any means justify the elaborate photographs taken of Gordon Ramsey and his family on the beach by their rural home. Shocking and far worse than any emotive individual action, is the transactional and intrusive stories made. Stories like these are really meaningless, but they do expose the classic agenda of division. It pits the metropolitan against the rural and creates a divisive issue of class division.

Further, The Daily Mail infamously juxtaposes amazing A-listers with lesser-known names, deliberately contrasting articles about good curves with bad weights, and being happily single with being all alone. The discourse about NHS workers breaking out against the government now dominates, followed by celebrities playing their roles by being shot clapping for the NHS. Is it necessary for The Mirror, The Mail and The Sun to all have shots of Declan Donnelly? Do they seriously think it makes the public respect the NHS more? The reader is commonly told some tough message from a front-line medic about where you’ll end up if you break the rules, whilst the papers continue to profit from useless stills. Establishment figures are right to preach about solidarity, but it saddens me that lives are being risked to fill a foolish celebrity quota.

Our fellow neighbours have been portrayed as selfish and culpable for chronic national problems, with stockpiling being mostly a bit more collective shopping from the wealthier areas of the country. The intrusion of the lives of celebrities is always wrong, but it must now stop in order to protect the public. Reporting on official directions from the government is more important. These articles turn the public against harmless celebrities. They erode our trust in each other: this trust in what will get the British public, and, indeed, the rest of the world, through this testing lockdown period.

Seamus O’Hanlon

Image: Pexels.

COVID-19 has decimated industries, devasted educational institutions, and butchered many small businesses. However, new technology has, again, profited, which is a recurring theme of the past few decades. As social media has risen as an alternative to mainstream media in a polarised political climate, virtual house party apps have capitalised on the limited social freedoms that the world is now facing. This sudden popularity explains the fact that Houseparty, the most downloaded video sharing app by far, is rumoured to have exploited innocent users.

This convincing, damning rumour materialised just as families all over the world, older family members included, were having virtual fun. This is, undoubtedly, a positive product from obeying the difficult quarantine laws in place worldwide. Rumours are often ugly, destructive creatures, unjustifiable in this crucial point of the crisis, but ones like this have to be scrutinised for the protection of customers, many of whom are, sadly, now financially insecure.

On Monday 30^th, Sarah Manavis, writing in the New Statesman, comprehensively outlined how the scam evolved from one mysterious tweet to a viral flurry of posts. The article highlighted Houseparty’s official line that it does not possess enough sensitive information for bank accounts to be hacked. The main concern is Houseparty’s controversial USP of anyone being able to gate-crash unlocked parties.

In my opinion, that danger is controllable via the user’s own restriction of locking the party and that parents should closely monitor all online activity their children engage in. This is not on par with thousands of pounds being stolen from user bank accounts. This story has not received the same quick viral attention and, like many reliable sources of information, the truth and critical analysis are lost in the algorithms. This rumour exposes the main issue with journalism today, which is how headlines are generated by only a few unsubstantiated tweets. Twitter has dominated media discourse, providing ‘debates’ for morning shows, and, now, the platform is let loose to ruin a uniting brand. One tweet can have far too much toxic influence.

Houseparty itself was right to swiftly address the damaging rumour, but its advertisement of $1 Million to whoever can uncover the instigator is wrong. This amount of money makes it seem as though there was an actual scam, and it assumes that there is one individual or group at hand, not a complex, international web of misinformation. The company should have also realised that giving this amount of money to the first individual to uncover the ‘smear campaign’ actually focuses the attention on the lone sleuth and not the billion-dollar company incapable of defending its own security.

Houseparty is great, or bad, depending on which way you look at it, with its utilisation of phonebooks that means your normal Facebook or phone contacts automatically appear. As users, we are supposed to trust an app, which is relatively unheard of, that offers video call functions equal to Messenger or Skype. Houseparty should have gone overboard with its media response, offering education to the public about online safety, how its data is used, and providing assurance that online banking is protected on personal devices. In these quarantine times, society is currently very reliant on technology. Competent and trustworthy digital giants should, at least, work together to prevent viral misinformation that threatens quarantine communication.

Seamus O’Hanlon

Image: Pexels.

The news that Leeds Beckett University has opened up a foodbank for students who have to pay up to eighty per cent of outgoings on rent is damning evidence that austerity and its destructive consequences are not over. Food banks themselves offer practical solutions to young families, pensioners and those receiving Universal Credit. The volunteers who run the City Campus food bank should be commended for their generosity and diligence, but as expressed by Beckett’s Union Affairs Officer Charlie Hinds, this is no cause for celebration.

Food bank usage has grown rapidly, with the Trussell Trust reporting an increase of seventy-three per cent over the past five years. Food banks are used by various groups of people: families with two working parents, the ‘just about managing’ category, and now students. Students have been demoted from no fees to modest fees: bursary provision has been reduced to the current system where maintenance grants are crudely doled out with the payment being simplistically the same outside of London. Starvation is presented as a cruel option when grants just about cover accommodation. Food poverty affects academic attainment, social experience and physical health which all limit disadvantaged students upon graduation.

Looking after the physical and mental health of students should be the top priority of all parties concerned, which means that wholesome meals, fresh fruit and vegetables and variety should be treated like attendance by the University. How many personal tutors or support staff proactively enquire about the diet of their students? Universities are still transitioning from the assumption that those who get in are broadly middle class and can afford the cost of living. Positively, it now seems that some universities are addressing students who have to go without. Opening up a food bank is a great practical step. However, I worry that reliance on food banks further marginalises poor students from important socialising heavily associated with lunches and dinners that many universities push.

Universities provide specialised education to all, ranging from international students to first-generation to low income. Many have support staff to help facilitate equality of opportunity. I would argue that universities should be more concerned with affordable on-campus food that is accessible and nutritious, albeit basic, rather than whatever faddish, costly food store they put in place. The Union has a right to make a profit for its investment but it must provide affordable options that don’t exploit the lack of convenience and competition on campus.

ToastLovesCoffee in Harehills is a local establishment that the various universities in Leeds could and should follow the example of: using otherwise wasted supermarket ingredients with no prices on the menu, it makes food accessible for those on various incomes by employing a ‘pay as you can’ method. I believe that a better partial solution would be for the University to adopt this system in a few establishments as an experiment that could benefit those who could pay for their lunch but not at that price.

The University has the chance to champion dignity and inclusivity and make campus food available for all catered and non-catered if it can remember that food is a human right.

Image Credit: University of Leeds