Words are impossible to take back. As human beings, we are all guilty of not always following the doctrine: “Think before you speak!” and sometimes, inevitably, we do say the wrong things. However, when you’re in the spotlight, the consequences can be dire. The media often has an impressive way of twisting people’s words and completely changing their meaning – a reality that hit pop star Lily Allen earlier this month.
After visiting the refugees in Calais as part of BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire, Allen has been heavily criticised by the media for a particular conversation she had with a 13-year-old refugee, during which she apologised on behalf of the UK for the situation he was in. Her exact words were: “We’ve bombed your country, put you in the hands of the Taliban and now put you in danger of risking your life to get into our country. I apologise on behalf of my country. I’m sorry for what we have put you through.”
The backlash she has received via both social media and the press rejects her apology on their behalf and blames her ‘large ego’ for making her think that she has a right to speak for us all. Whilst this article does not attempt to endorse somebody doing this, there is something significant to be said about the media’s reaction to these comments, as well as to her general emotional response. Is it fair for someone’s words, words that were spoken with genuine feeling and sentiment, to be taken and twisted to something almost malicious?
As well, the stories of the refugees, understandably, reduced Allen to tears – tears which have received criticism from The Daily Mail as “patronizing and self-indulgent”, as well as Tory MP David Davies (who made a plea for British authorities to check the refugees dental records to ensure their age) saying that if we get carried away “Lily Allen-style with tears in our eyes”, then we’re not actually going to solve the crisis.
However, where some might interpret crying in the face of mass suffering as “patronizing and self-indulgent”, others have regarded it as simply empathetic. Labour MP Dianne Abbot defended Allen on ITV’S Good Morning Britain, stating: “Lily Allen is a good woman. She saw the conditions in the camp and was reduced to tears… If you guys went to the camp, you would be reduced to tears also. If that is what she felt and that is what she wanted to say then she is entitled to say it.”
It is a controversial comment, and it is of course a controversial issue. But Allen’s response is admirable. Through it all, she has refused to be bullied by the media into compromising her views and apologising for her actions. The media savagely attacking her for her arguably poorly chosen words completely disregards that they were merely an emotionally induced response to a horrendous issue. Celebrities are used to taking a bashing by the media. But Allen has taken the cyber slap and twisted it into positive publicity for the refugee crises – as long as people are talking about the comment, people are talking about the issue. She told the Victoria Derbyshire programme: “I hope my visit will shine a light on the situation and humanize the people that are there.” The refugee in question, Sham Sher, has since been received by his father in Birmingham.
The accusations that Allen’s comments are a ‘media stunt’ hold a significant lack of faith in the empathy and kindness of human beings. Allen’s ‘media stunt’ was not to put her face in the spotlight, but to draw attention to the refugee crisis itself. Perhaps the storm her comments created reveal a darker truth surrounding the media’s treatment of female celebrities, particularly involving politics. Summarised perfectly in a sarcastic remark by James O’Brian on LBC: “How dare Lily Allen go to Calais and meet people before reaching conclusions about them. Doesn’t she know she can just get her opinions from the Mail Online?”