Borkowski Media Trends: Darts, Epstein Island & The Post Office

PLUS: The XL Bully Ban

Littler Nothing

The story of 16-year-old dart wonder Luke Littler has been almost unavoidable in an otherwise quiet news landscape this week. Nothing escapes the sports pages more quickly than a teenage star, and with the added idiosyncrasies of darts as a cultural phenomenon, Littler’s journey seems almost purpose-made for a January pick-me-up.

Even though Littler failed to ultimately triumph over Luke Humphries for the world champion title, his talent is undeniable. Littler entered the stage as a 66/1 long shot, reaching the final and almost toppling the world number 1, missing a crucial double two to take a commanding 5-2 lead. This feat is even more impressive, considering the youngest ever World Darts Championship winner was Jelle Klaasen at 21.

However, looking at the child sports prodigies of recent years raises questions about whether success this early in his career is a blessing. Take Emma Raducanu, whose 2021 US Open Win made her the media darling of the moment, raking in highly lucrative brand deals and celebrity status. But her meteoric rise failed to continue, and less than three years later, the headlines covering Littler’s magic moment appear side by side with coverage of Raducanu’s “comeback.”

Littler himself has already faced trolling for his less-than-youthful looks and eyebrow-raising relationship with a 21-year-old woman he met online while playing Xbox. Even HMRC has had some fun at Littler’s (literal) expense, responding to news that £83k of his £200k winnings with: “Big congrats to Luke on his fantastic run to the final. We can confirm the existence of income tax.”

Our own Mark Borkowski has declared Luke’s potential as the “Wayne Rooney of darts,” interesting timing, given his comments came two days before Birmingham City sacked him after 15 games in charge. Let’s just say we look forward to featuring him in future Trends updates throughout 2024. 

Epstein Misinformation

After much-fevered anticipation, the Jeffrey Epstein saga took another turn this week with the release of unredacted documents from earlier trials against Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. As a lightning rod for conspiracy and partisan fracas, Epstein continues to generate news and discussion like almost no one else, and the internet was awash with speculation this week about exactly what the documents would contain. 

But, seemingly as ever in this case, much of the discourse seemed fuelled by misinformation and misunderstanding. Despite #EpsteinClientList trending on Twitter and a fake image of celebrity names circulating, the documents were never a ‘list’ or even supposed to contain many new revelations about his crimes. As the Guardian said, the details, consisting mostly of those already named or not accused of wrongdoing, were “less than scandalous”.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the story is the extent to which Epstein still appals, even so many years after his arrest and death – his proximity to so many famous people remains staggering and the public interest is as high as ever. But that interest doesn’t seem to always come from shock at how systems allowed him to get away with it for so long or anger at how vulnerable women were trafficked – in our increasingly polarised times, association with Epstein, real or not, is used online as an indictment of celebrities or political figures we may not like.

Increasingly, this is moving into real life – this week, American football star Aaron Rodgers suggested that talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was on ‘the list’, prompting Kimmel to threaten to sue. It seemed negligible that not only was Kimmel not on the list, but that the idea of the ‘list’ itself was a fiction. Similarly, Callum Hudson-Odoi, the Nottingham Forest player, was forced to deny on Instagram that he had ever been associated with Epstein – despite the fact he would’ve been a child at the height of his activities.

The psychological thriller The Scary of Sixty First satirised the internet’s obsession with Epstein, highlighting how amateur conspiracists put themselves and others in danger when repeating misinformation. With more releases set to come out over the coming weeks, the discussions will no doubt continue – but some pause and empathy in the Twitter conversation would be a welcome surprise.   

Mr. Bates vs. The Post Office

This week, the once-buried embers of the Horizon scandal – a saga of faulty software, wrongful accusations, and shattered lives – has been rekindled by ITV with the premiere of "Mr. Bates vs. The Post Office". The series has brought renewed public attention to a scandal that left hundreds wrongfully convicted, with Toby Jones portraying Alan Bates, the real-life subpostmaster who spearheaded a decade-long legal battle against the Post Office.

In the late 1990s, the Post Office rolled out the Horizon IT system, a new accounting software meant to streamline operations. It was riddled with glitches, leading to discrepancies in cash accounts. Instead of investigating the software itself, the Post Office turned its guns on the subpostmasters, accusing them of theft and fraud. Under immense pressure and fearing worse, many pleaded guilty, losing homes, livelihoods, and reputations. Four reportedly died by suicide.

When faced with similar accusations, Bates refused to back down. He tirelessly gathered evidence, rallied fellow subpostmasters, and launched a legal campaign that would eventually culminate in a landmark High Court victory in 2019. "Mr. Bates vs. The Post Office" dramatises this incredible David-and-Goliath battle, shining a spotlight on the human cost of the scandal and the tenacity of those who fought for justice.

The drama's impact has been undeniable, reopening old wounds and igniting public outrage against the Post Office, an already beleaguered institution. Calls for accountability have reached a high, targeting not just the organisation but also individuals. Sir Ed Davey, former Post Office Minister, faces demands to relinquish his knighthood, while ex-Post Office boss Paula Vennells is under pressure to return her CBE.

Amidst this maelstrom, the Post Office has made tentative steps towards healing. They've established a victim compensation scheme while scrutinising the Horizon system is underway. However, as Paula Vennells herself admitted, "the damage has been done," and regaining the public's trust will be a long, arduous journey. So for now, the Post Office's reputation appears about as secure as a parcel marked "Fragile: Handle with Care".

The XL Bully Ban

On Sunday, as millions welcomed the new year, many were counting down a different event: the start of the XL bully ban. From 2024, England and Wales banned the American XL bully, making it illegal to breed, sell, or allow these dogs to roam freely, and mandated that owners must now use muzzles on their dogs.

An unbreakable golden rule in communications is approaching pets sensitively, given passionate owners’ profound attachment. Despite this, the XL bully ban has garnered broad acceptance, except among some XL bully owners and ardent animal rights advocates.

While most recognise that a dog’s behaviour largely depends on its training, an XL bully’s attack is exceptionally brutal, often resulting in serious injuries or fatalities. This breed’s notorious aggression, amplified by the ‘XL bully’ moniker, has overshadowed efforts to defend it, posing a critical challenge for owners and supporters to whip up support.

The ban has captured everyone’s attention and transitioned from a news item to a national debate, mainly fueled by social media, especially platforms like TikTok. There, users have witnessed vigils, protests, and gatherings of XL bully owners protesting the ban.

Similar content has dominated many people’s FYP feeds, including AI-generated art depicting XL bullies ascending to heaven, while some people have been wearing muzzles in solidarity. One rapper has gone viral with a song on the ban, underlining the absurdity in some of these videos, inadvertently supporting the ban’s rationale.