Communications specialist The Ceres Partnership, found that coverage focussed on the negative side of the story. Director Peter Crowe, whose clients include payment systems manufacturer MEI, says: “We used our own ‘Mercury’ message analysis system to summarise the coverage the day after the announcement was made. I don’t suppose anyone will be surprised that there was negative coverage, but perhaps they will be surprised by the extent of it, and the degree to which the tabloids ‘demonised’ the industry may be something of a shock.”

Negative coverage accounted for some 58 per cent of the stories which associated gaming with gambling addiction and criminality.

However, the good news was that 52 per cent of the coverage, the second highest rate of exposure, was allocated to the regeneration benefits the supercasino could bring. Other positive messages included the treatment of Manchester’s success and the reasons behind it (23 per cent); and the strict controls and regulations that British casinos will be subject to (14 per cent).

Negative messages included the uncertain future now facing Blackpool and the Dome (25 per cent); allegations that the Casino Advisory Panel’s (CAP) decision was somehow biased and orchestrated by outside influences (38 per cent); suggestions that the casino expansion is contrary to public opinion (4 per cent); a leaked memo from Greater Manchester Police predicting an increase in organised crime (4 per cent); the possible legal challenge that may now face CAP’s verdict (19 per cent); and opposing views from opinion leaders and residents.

The number and frequency of negative messages meant that they received almost double the editorial space allocated to their optimistic counterparts.

On average, tabloids and red-tops such as the Sun, and the Mirror featured more negative aspects than the broadsheets and quality papers. This has clear implications for the industry’s communications strategy going forward.

Overall, the results showed that 71 per cent of the coverage had an impartial tone, 25 per cent was overtly negative, and 4 per cent positive.

Both the Daily Mail and The Sun portrayed gambling as being synonymous with addiction.

“Gambling by numbers” in the former depicted the percentage increase in addicts, crime rate and young offenders that the casino expansion would bring. The industry’s monetary contribution to tackling addiction was placed alongside the NHS costs to treat it. This careful arrangement, using statistics to aid credibility, was designed to discredit any positive benefits of the supercasino.

Meanwhile, in The Sun, “Lives wrecked by gambling” headed a juxtaposition of slot machines with two legal cases of upstanding citizens toppled by their crimes caused by gambling addiction.

The onus on the gambling industry portrayed here demonstrates a common trait in the media’s coverage - that the industry preys on the vulnerable. This has the potential to create an image of an apparently small and inevitable step between ‘having a flutter’ and falling victim to gambling addiction, which the media claimed was not only condoned by the industry but actively encouraged.

The fact that British controls against such encouragement are the strictest in the world is a message that received modest exposure, featuring in only 14 per cent of the coverage. Ensuring this message receives greater attention in the future will be vital to balancing the debate.

This predatory image was compounded by CAP’s pre-publicity which emphasised that the supercasino destination would need to be “the best possible test of social impact”. What that might mean for its choice of the third-most deprived area in Britain was treated with scepticism by the media.

For religious leaders, local residents and some political figures, it meant a serious concern for social and moral stability. Their views were featured in every paper we analysed.

Trepidation from other opinion leaders was also featured. Parliamentary sketches in The Times and The Daily Telegraph drew attention to the concerns of MPs, while 14 per cent of articles featured Gordon Brown’s apprehension.

The treasury was described in 8 per cent of the coverage as being one of the ‘real winners’ of the casino expansion, with the influx of hundreds of millions of pounds in tax revenue. Consequently, Gordon Brown’s publicised stance against further expansion, which he is said to believe to be ‘against the public good’ is particularly influential.

Others reflected the same concerns. Simon Heffer in The Daily Telegraph asked: “and why not legalise drug dealing and prostitution while you’re at it?” Comment in the Daily Express described it as “gambling with real lives” while elsewhere in its leading article ‘Manchester: The big casino gamble’ it questioned whether the “rank outsider” could be the “loser in the long run”.

That the supercasino could reverse the misfortunes of its location through regeneration, investment and employment was a message that featured in 52 per cent of the coverage. However, this was often overshadowed by the range and prominence of negative views.

Perhaps most prominent of all was the Daily Mail’s front page, which was entirely dedicated to an excerpt of a particularly scornful comment article. While this scorn was primarily aimed at the Labour government and its questionable decision to “go down this squalid road”, it did make some harmful associations for the industry: “doesn’t gambling sum up the lying, cheating and chicanery that have characterised this sorry administration?”

In a country where both debt and concern over crime exceeds its European neighbours, people will want reassurance that introducing large-scale, 24 hour gambling to Britain will not bring more of both. While voicing these concerns, the national press coverage did little to allay them.

Comments made by Mancunians reflected these concerns, to which The Times dedicated a quarter page article entitled ‘We’d rather have super schools and super hospitals’ and the Daily Mail featured ‘The Mancunian Misgivings’.

These comments showed that those who stood to benefit directly from the regeneration felt that the potential for bad outweighed the potential for good.

The concerns of Greater Manchester Police were also publicised. Its leaked memo predicted a rise in organised crime: “Crime relating to counterfeit currency, disposal of proceeds of crime, vehicles crime, false identity documents and offences by employees.”

Covered by the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, the power of such a statement by the authority on crime prevention should not be underestimated in its ability to add weight to the opposing arguments and shift perceptions against the supercasino.

However, perceptions may already be firmly against it according to articles printed in the Daily Mail, which suggested that the casino expansion flew in the face of public opinion.

Interestingly, this was not the view portrayed for the majority of Blackpool’s residents and civic leaders, whose misery and disappointment at the outcome was featured in 25 per cent of the articles analysed.

Many articles that depicted Blackpool’s now uncertain future focused on the positive effect the supercasino could have had, reviving the town from its otherwise certain decline.

In these articles, Blackpool’s hotels and B&B’s were described as either ‘boarded up’ or ‘catering for benefit claimants’; the high street was labeled a ‘no go area’; its decline as a centre of tourism was highlighted and its unemployment rates were shown to be above the national average. These sorry characteristics were used to describe Blackpool as the perfect location for a development that could bring about regeneration; a stark contrast to the articles depicting the social calamity now facing Manchester.

81 per cent of the coverage detailed the reasons why CAP decided against Blackpool and the Dome. 26 per cent of this was impartial, lifting quotes directly from CAP’s report.

28 per cent presented the positive view for why Manchester was successful, commenting on its regeneration needs, its unique social responsibility policies, and its excellent track record for regeneration.

The remainder was negative, with The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Sun and The Daily Mirror featuring more cynical views. This included the opinion that Manchester was selected for its potential to create Labour voters.

The avoidance of a public backlash was also suggested to be a key driver for the selection of Manchester – the Dome was a government favourite to win and was embroiled in scandal by the personal relationships between its developer and John Prescott.

Combine these latter opinions with the 19 per cent of coverage which reported that CAP’s decision may now face legal action, and the overall portrayal could lead to the conclusion that the process was in some way orchestrated. Thus adding to the image that where gambling exists, so does “lying, cheating and chicanery”.

Peter Crowe concluded: “The press coverage of the supercasino announcement has provided a microcosm of the debate around gaming which has been going on for the last 12 months or so. The industry has a huge opportunity in the UK at this time, but public perceptions and concerns among key opinion formers could make progress very difficult. It is not too late for these perceptions to be reversed, but strategies need to be put in place and implemented at the highest levels within the industry as soon as possible to counteract further damage.”

As well as its work with MEI, the Ceres Partnership provides strategic consultancy to a wide range of business-to-business and consumer clients in the UK and Europe.

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend