DON'T PANIC - a BDSM hitch-hiker's guide to dealing with the media

Barry Slemmingsjournalist and former chairman of SM Pride
For members of the BDSM community the attention of the UK media is normally viewed at least with deep suspicion and often with complete horror. Given the judgemental nature of certain sections of society towards anything which is different, we fear that media exposure could mean social suicide.

It does not HAVE to mean that, and there are ways and means of dealing with the media and surviving to tell the tale.

Most of my advice is already in the heading, 'don't panic'. That and face the tiger - don't turn your back on it...! The moment you slink away and hide, your lack of action 'proves' they were right to criticise. It makes you look guilty.

There are many forms of media so let's look at cases first.

RADIO least dangerous in my book is radio. Yes people still listen to it and I have done a few radio interviews myself. The great thing about radio is there are no pictures so no-one gets to see your face. So that is one social threat greatly reduced - being identified. If you find the local press in your area is turning hostile then getting the radio station's newsroom on your side may be a very shrewd move. It steps around the press and allows you to speak directly into people's homes.

If a radio reporter wants to attend a munch or interview you personally then I say 'let them' - provided everyone in the munch are aware and no personal details are discussed, radio provides the least intrusive form of media coverage. There are no pictures. The great thing about radio is that they are broadcasting your actual words and they need your voices to make it work. Vox popularii - the voice of the people. Creative editing is less likely and your thoughts and ideas are likely to come over well. It may pay you to run your own tape recorder while they are there so you have a copy tape in case anything appears to be quoted out of context on broadcast. Also tape the broadcast itself.

If it is a live studio interview then you get a chance to speak for yourself, and our lifestyle, directly into the homes of the listeners. Remember to sound bright and interesting, remember to use buzz words like 'community' 'lifestyle' and 'our human rights' and be ready for awkward questions. If the interviewer throws you an awkward question - like linking us with paedophiles or pornography - be direct and meet him/her head-on. Don't hum and haw, no 'errrrs'. A straight answer that we are not involved in those activities will do. Remind him/her also that many of our community are parents and grandparents and we would have no compunction about reporting a paedo to the police. Have someone at home recording the interview for you in case of any complaints later.

If the radio station approach you for an interview seriously think about doing it. Explain to them upfront your social concerns and explain why we are still suspicious of the media - it is not that we have something to hide but we are still concerned about the social consequences. They may agree to just using a first name or your scene nick. Agree to meet at their studio or the back room of a quiet pub, etc. I suggest you do not invite them to your home [unless you are 'out' like I am] as the radio station may be linked to a local newspaper or a journalist may change jobs from the radio to the local paper and take your home address with him/her.

TELEVISION as a press journalist I have been surprised by how friendly and accepting television people are, both documentary and TV news journalists. Some press journos [and I am one] are still absolute shits in my book but I have yet to meet a bad TV person.

Same rules apply as with radio, be direct and open and explain your social concerns up front. TV differs from radio in that there are images. This makes TV a more powerful form of media but it also means it is more intrusive. Again, if the press media in your area is proving hostile, turning to the regional TV company for a more positive report could be a very valid option. Given the immediacy of TV and the fact that it goes into nearly everyone's homes you will get a better coverage than even the newspapers will give you. A local newspaper may only sell 30,000 or 50,000 newspapers in an area of one million homes. How many people have a television? Nearly all of us. If the local press are giving you a hard time, counter attack on a battlefield they have no access to. The TV or radio reporters even have a valid handle for their story - "sexual alternative group fights human rights battle with nasty local newspaper" is an attractive story. It makes TV or radio look liberal and 'right-on'.

PRINTED MEDIA I will divide printed media into two groups, magazines and newspapers.

MAGAZINES on the whole I have had good dealings with magazines and I would suggest that you take the same approach with them as with radio and TV. Be open and accepting and explain our lifestyle in your own words. Many magazine journos use tape recorders instead of notebooks and I have never found either to be a problem, in fact I think a tape recorded interview encourages the journalist's accuracy. I do suggest, if you are fearful, that you have your own tape recorder present and make a copy tape. Don't try and sneak it in to the interview, just explain to the journo what and why - and do it openly.

Images in magazines are often larger and seem more powerful. You can suggest that the magazine obtains stock images from an agency or Skin Two magazine may be able to help the magazine source a good picture. If they want to take their own pictures agree with the magazine in advance who will appear in them and what the subject matter will be.

If they ask to photograph your munch then prior discussion/approval with the munch is essential and you should ask the photographer to keep his/her lense cap 'on' until anyone who does not want to be photographed is out of the way - preferably in the next room or bar. Insist lens cap goes straight on back afterwards. Delegate someone reliable to chaperone the photographer and explain why.

Because magazines are less 'headline led' and less prone to fluctuation in their sales, a magazine is far less likely to stitch you up and do an overblown headlines story. Strangely I have found mens or lads magazines like GHQ or FM to be very responsible in their reporting of BDSM issues. The same also applies to Bizarre magazine which - while sensationalising some aspects of human life - has run some open-minded articles about BDSM. The worst Bizarre has done is laughed WITH us, rather than AT us.

NEWSPAPERS ahhhh the gutter press! This is the one that needs careful handling. Broadly divided into three types, there are national newspapers [Times, Sun, News of the World], regional daily or evening newspapers and the local newspapers. Locals are still divided into 'bought' and 'free' newspapers and the type which you pay for may be slightly more responsible than the give-away newspapers.

So what are the issues [no pun intended] in dealing with newspapers?

Traditionally newspapers have been very competitive with each other and this has led to them seeking headline stories to boost sales. If a newspaper is like that, it should be treated with greater caution. If you live in a town covered by two competitive local newspapers locked in a circulation war and one of these finds out about your group or your personal sexuality then the chances of a 'splash' story of the 'kinky goings-on' type increase. If they find out about just yourself, they may not run the story because the code of practice [see later] gives you some rights to individual privacy. If you have a sensitive occupation such as teacher or nursery nurse, they may take a different view.

If the two newspapers are competing, you should write a considered letter putting your/our case to the newspaper which published the first story and see if they publish it and give you a fair shout. If they do not, you then play off the rivals and go to the OTHER newspaper and offer them a 'human rights' exclusive which makes the first newspaper look stupid and insensitive. I call this a win/win strategy. You win in the short term by getting your side of the story across and you reap long-term benefits. The newspaper which outed you [or your munch/club] will think twice about doing it again.

We have had recent examples of munches being outed in Barrow and Carlisle. In both cases I was able to advise the munch organisers to take the newspapers 'head-on' and write back, putting our case. The newspapers responded well and - in the case of the second report which occured a week after the first - it was clear that the human rights aspect had already sunk home and the second report was far more sensitive and up-beat than the first. [Both newspapers belonged to the same company].

It pays to scream 'human rights'. Protest and survive.

All newspapers are covered by the Press Complaints Commission and their 'code of practice' for press reporting. If a journalist contacts you out-of-the-blue for a quote and you fear a stitch-up, the first thing you do is refer him/her to their own code of practice. It may surprise them that YOU know about it and it should put them on the defensive instead. They may tone down or even drop the story entirely if you are clued up enough.

The PCC can be found online here

The code of practice is here

You will note that it covers accuracy, privacy, opportunity to reply, etc. Read it very carefully.

In our battles with the News of the World over their outing of The Gate and Desyre Foundation, SM Pride laid great stress on section three [privacy], section 10 [clandestine devices and subterfuge] and section 12 [discrimination].

Our major weapon was [and still is], section 12, i) "The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability." If a newspaper contacts and you start referring to the code of practice, make sure you mention and quote section 12 i). I am quite sure it was drafted with gays and lesbians in mind but we ARE a valid sexuality so the newspapers can just grin and bear it.

Do not panic and ABOVE ALL do not get threatening or abusive with said journalist. Rather a bored and world-weary tone of "have you just found out about that?" works wonders. "We have been meeting there for ages, the publican knows us all and we don't hold any orgies on the premises. Hate to shatter your illusions chum but we are as interesting as watching paint dry....' etc. A boring story is a non-story. You can't frighten a journo off but you can bore him/her to death very quickly.

In all dealings with the press stress that we are ordinary people, that we are a human rights issue and that we are a community. When the reporter says they have never heard of us, refer them to Informed Consent or the UK section of bondage.com [they can find it on Google]. Stress the size of the scene and our level of organisation plus the national and regional events. I often draw parallels between the gay scene and our own, it is a valid point to make. Also play to their ignorance of our scene - "So you have just found out about us? We have been around for years. We are like the Masons... etc".

The sort of statistics which I trot out are: "There are more than 90 UK pubs and winebars where we meet regularly. Your readers have probably even sat in a pub with a munch going on around them and they never knew we were there. THAT is how interesting we are....." etc.

It is a fact that at least one person in 10 is BDSM inclined and a recent survey by Durex condoms found 43% of the UK population had done something kinky and we actually led the world [we beat Australia by 1%] in this respect.

I always stress that we are ordinary people exercising our human rights of freedom of association and freedom of sexual expression. Most journalists are fairly left of centre [esp if members of the National Union of Journalists] and an appeal to this aspect of our lifestyle is bound to be treated with greater sympathy.

If it all goes wrong and something appears in print which you feel is genuinely wrong, write first to the editor and complain. Do NOT threaten and do not write aggressively. That will always put newspapermen's backs up as they claim 'freedom of the press' etc. Rather a more weary tone of "do we have to justify ourselves all the time?" is probably better.

The Press Complaints Commission [see above] have a section devoted to the complaints procedure which should be followed. Follow it to the letter and do not be afraid to seek supporting complaints from other BDSM groups, individuals or national BDSM organisations.

SPEED OF RESPONSE: I must emphasise that - above all else - you must work to the media's deadlines in responding. This may mean shooting from the hip. You cannot sit around for days or even weeks agonising over some wordy and lofty response. A 'letter to the editor' should be no longer that 250 or 300 words MAX and should go off within 24 to 36 hours to meet a daily newspapers deadlines and maybe three days MAX to meet a weekly's deadlines. If you leave it any later then you risk not having your voice heard.

If the newspaper does a sneaky and reports your munch but the story is largely positive write and THANK them. Send it by email as 'name witheld' if you like but thank them. In with your thanks, slip in some of the points outlined: "we are ordinary.... human rights... freedom to associate.. etc". Simple buzz words but your letter of thanks becomes the vehicle to get the message across that we are not a threat or a bunch of weirdos. You could also consider inviting a journo along to the next munch and let him/her meet you for real. That also takes the sting out of the situation - bore the poor bastard to death and send them on their way.

ARE WE ILLEGAL? You will note that the PCC's public interest clause in the code of conduct gives the newspapers the right to investigate to expose crime. In the past journalists have tried to claim BDSM is illegal and the News of the World used to round off reports with lines like they are 'sending a file to the police', etc.

During our battles with the NoW SM Pride has stressed that we are not illegal. The Spanner case was famously lost but you can refer journos to Regina V Martin Church [the Club Whiplash case] at Southwark Crown Court on March 29, 1996, which established that BDSM clubs WHERE SEXUAL ACTIVITIES ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE are not illegal. The 1751 Disorderly Houses Act was ruled not to apply and the jury threw the case out. It cost the prosecution over £285,000 in costs and they got nothing. No further raids on active BDSM clubs have taken place since. The case was widely reported in the Daily Telegraph and The Independent on March 30.

Given the above case, a humble munch where we just sit around and just talk is very very legal. The above case is always worth mentioning to jittery publicans or breweries. If an 'active' BDSM club escaped prosecution what chance is there of a police raid on a 'chat only' group like a munch?

Also in 1996 was the Regina v Wilson case [the Doncaster bum branding] where Alan Wilson was cleared on February 28, 1996, of harming his wife. Three Appeal Court judges said: "Sexual activity between husband and wife in the privacy of the own home is not a matter for criminal investigation, let alone criminal prosecution." The judges criticised the CPS for bringing the case to court and said it served 'no useful purpose'. This was reported in The Guardian and the Evening Standard [among others on Feb 29]. A much longer version appears in The Times Law Report of March 5, 1996.

It has been noticeable that since SM Pride took the News of the World to the PCC twice and has bashed this issue with other newspapers - noteably the Evening Standard and The Spectator - that newspapers are taking a much more liberal and less invasive view of our lifestyle. Positive mentions have begun to appear in 'agony aunt' columns.

The Firm was targeted by the News of the World on Boxing Day 2004 and I noted that from [once] being a 'page seven' or 'page nine' story, the NoW's latest BDSM exposé had slipped to page 43 and the only clandestine photo to show a punter's face had a bar across the eyes to protect the man's identity. The angle of the story was no longer 'this is illegal' - their story seemed more concerned with the fact that a Cliff Richard record was played at a BDSM Christmas event. It no longer laughed at us, rather with us.

Attitudes are changing and there IS some hope that our lifestyle is beginning to be accepted.

In short - DON'T PANIC - meet them head-on and don't turn your back on the tiger.

Barry Slemmings

copyright Barry Slemmings 2005, copying and re-posting of the entire un-edited article is both permitted and encouraged.


see also SM & The Law



Back to Safety Index