MILLIE BOBBY BROWN AND LYDIA HAWKEN: THE SYMPTOM AND THE CAUSE
- Melissa Fleur Afshar
- Mar 10
- 11 min read
Updated: Mar 11
My thoughts on the fallout from the Daily Mail's articles about Millie Bobby Brown's appearance, and what the industry needs to accept.
I am sure that you have all already seen Millie Bobby Brown’s online response to the recent Daily Mail articles that either dissect her appearance, or highlight a questionable comment about it.
The titles ranged from ‘Why Are Gen Z’ers Like Millie Bobby Brown Ageing So Badly?’ to ‘What Has Millie Bobby Brown Done To Her Face’—each of which the British actress named in her recent Instagram video that slammed the negative coverage placing her looks under a microscopic lens.
Brown, who is just 21, has been in the public eye since she was 12-years-old after her scene-stealing turn in Stranger Things, of which I am a massive fan, catapulted her to huge international fame.
I’m going to assume that she knows a thing or two about the wider world’s obsession with celebrities, the public interest in even the most mundane aspects of a celebrity’s personal life, and the media’s warped perception that because celebrities like Brown have elevated levels of visibility we in some way own them and can write, post and share whatever we want about them.
I’m sure that, apart from in the eyes of her dearest and most loyal fans, Brown knows that thanks to her cosmic fame, to many people—including both fans of her work and some media bosses too—she is just a symbol, and so, has an additional layer of armour around her that makes her much easier to talk or write about than ordinary folk.
We’re conditioned to think that just because many of them are sitting in multi-million dollar mansions in Los Angeles, celebrities like Brown are immune to stress, anxiety, hurt or emotional pain.
In short, they feel detached from the fact that Brown has all the emotions, sensitivities and feelings of a woman her age just because she is not as attainable as—or relatable to—the average Joe.
While she’s probably used to people following her every step and having something to say about it, Brown drew a line at the Daily Mail’s recent coverage of her looks—and rightly so.
After all, just because she’s famous, and is perhaps coached by PR gurus on when she should or shouldn’t speak, doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t stand up for herself.
Not only was what Brown said both her truth and morally correct, she was also valiant in standing up not only just for herself, but for other female celebrities who are often torn to shreds by tabloid editors too.
Still, there is another side to all this.
While she may have taken aim at some of us, us journalists need Brown’s help.
I’d say that by sharing her thoughts to over 60 million Instagram followers, she did more for us and our careers than a contained newsroom protest at one company could.
Let me explain.
After Brown called out the negative press attention, labelling it something “bigger than her", and something that affects every woman who grows up under “public scrutiny,” one of the journalists named, Lydia Hawken, who is also in her 20s and from England, resigned from the publication.
Hawken, who appears to be a freelance writer, then shared a video to TikTok following Brown’s viral takedown of her article ‘Why Are Gen Z’ers Like Millie Bobby Brown Ageing So Badly?’ to apologise for her part in the negative coverage. It is where she announced that she had handed her notice into Daily Mail, and that she was now on the receiving end of death threats and harassment from some of Brown’s fans and others who saw red in her writing.
I have personally seen individuals who Hawken has likely never crossed paths with tag her in posts on LinkedIn of all places slamming the recent article and her part in it.
Of course, Hawken’s response to the public backlash has also gained viral attention online.
Listen, those articles are not okay, and I’m sure that the great journalists of yesteryear who we all aspired to in following this career path are turning in their graves at the utter drivel the Daily Mail published recently (and why might I add, are their headlines always so long?)
But I think that most of us with a conscience can already agree on that.
Today, however, I want to talk about how this all connects to a wider cultural issue: the journalism industry’s battle for views and the media’s tendency to favour likes, clicks, comments and shares over quality, respectable journalism, and a returning, loyal audience.
I think that Brown and Hawken’s videos, while both recorded under difficult circumstances, can help us differentiate between a symptom of this cultural issue and what is really the cause.
Hawken mentioned in her video that she entered the industry during an era of "churnalism" where "quality features fell out of favour for more viral stories" — an age that I would say we are still very much in.
As an unfortunate result of this editorial direction, those who are at the bottom of the media ladder, like Hawken, often bear the brunt when things go wrong.
Said “things go wrong” refers to when something inappropriate or insensitive, which was forced out of a journalist on a deadline shorter than a toothpick to push traffic, gains scrutiny online—sometimes unfairly, because the online world is full of unnecessarily angry individuals, but sometimes, as in the case of Brown, rightfully so.
Journalism has always been seen as quite a glamorous profession, with the label “the media industry” its crowning jewel. While its glossy exterior is often shown in films, books and televisions series, you don’t actually get that much creative freedom—especially if you are in the early stages of your career.
Although we can certainly pitch ideas, and are encouraged to bring new angles to the editorial table, for the most part, many of us just do as we’re told.
I personally think this is because media, across the board, is in something akin to a survival mode, where editors and directors judge success by traffic, Google trends and Chartbeat, not by what a story serves its readers.
This is how we have ended up with sizeable chunk of the industry chasing around what is circulating online, or what they think could go viral, more than finding something original of substance that the assigned reporter is interested in.
This is likely why the journalists named had chosen to pitch or had been encouraged to weigh in on the cruel online discourse surrounding Brown’s appearance.
While Brown and many people around the world found this story topic both hurtful and totally unnecessary, similar shades of it that don’t stoop so low as to shame a public figure, are often encouraged in the newsroom.
Why? Well, in this case, because Brown’s appearance was a trending topic, because it had generated many comments on all social media platforms and because a controversial article often sparks debate, and as a result, traffic.
Indeed, there is to be said still an appetite for long-form features, in-depth and accurate videos, stories that are not hooked around social media trends, and great red-carpet interviews that haven’t been conducted by TikTok influencers—but some desks really do prefer the viral stuff, so much so that our work is now sometimes referred to by editors as content and not journalism.
By now, you are probably wondering why few people in the industry speak out about this, or move away from it.
I personally think this is because many journalists are overworked and bogged down and pushed to panic by relentless deadlines which can lead to short-term thinking.
Short-term thinking, and anxiety, can, in my opinion, squash creativity which could result in journalists failing to come forward with fresh ideas or questions about why a clickbait article like Hawken’s is worth their writing time.
And, at the end of the day, we do all need to live and pay our bills.
While Brown was absolutely “in the right”—as Hawken said in her follow-up video—to speak out against the coverage, I did have some conflicting thoughts as a viewer, and as a similarly young journalist whose current reporting is lifestyle-related.
I must admit that I did feel slightly uncomfortable watching Brown name-drop reporters, some of which might even be struggling to pay rent, from her very expensive home when editors and publications are likely much more to blame.
On the flipside, if she hadn’t done so, perhaps those named would not have realised that their writing was (hopefully) inauthentic to them and the work they would like to produce in the future.
If you’re not in media, you might find it challenging to sympathise with journalists like Hawken, because there were misogynistic undertones to those stories.
But I feel like all reporters can think of a time when we were encouraged to write a story we were not proud of, or that wasn’t a good look for us, all for the sake of a numerical target that, at the end of the day, meant nothing to us and our careers.
While I have seen an abundance of comments, videos and posts that slam and criticise the reporters mentioned by Brown, with some arguing that they are better off becoming plumbers or “stacking shelves” because those jobs are more needed than their writing, I was struck by how many people in the comments section of Hawken’s video had said they also felt that way about the state of journalism as a whole and where blame was being placed.
Many spoke of people outside of journalism judging Hawken while not knowing about the pressure reporters face in newsrooms, and the editorial hierarchy that can sometimes make it impossible to speak with seniors.
Many spoke of people outside of journalism judging Hawken while not knowing that we often have to write what we are told, or are told what projects to be affiliated with, and are usually given headlines, while being forced to stick to character counts and SEO targets for our work that is always edited.
Failure to comply of course results in losing that coveted journalism job, in what is an extremely difficult job market.
Some spoke of the difficulties they had to go through, and the drivel they had to write, just to break into a newsroom environment, to breathe the same air as senior writers or minor celebrity broadcasters after fighting tooth and nail through extremely competitive interviews for the rare opportunity to be given a byline, or visible standing, in media.
To put it bluntly, a lot of young people with big dreams enter journalism thinking that they will be placed on big investigations, break news, conduct interviews and get a fantastic response from the publication or outlet’s audience—But the reality for most entry-level or younger journalists is having a small role at a crappy paper where you need to churn out digital clickbait, just to be within an established publication or outlet.
And unfortunately, while we absolutely wish it was, it isn't a career where you can just write nice, loving things about people or world events all the time, in a way that pleases everyone championing “be kind” on social media.
One of the standout interactions under Hawken’s apology video was when someone expressed how awful they find her, arguing that she should have quit her publication ages ago and done something else.
Another viewer responded:
“Try and get a job in journalism where you only write meaningful stories, go and see how hard it is.”
Some journalists in the comments section agreed that moral superiority unfortunately doesn’t always pay the bills or put food on the table.
At the end of the day, we are all busy with life’s many responsibilities, and need to look after our mental and physical health before rushing around trying to get other jobs just to please someone who looks down on what we’ve written or where we work.
I for one have many “articles” to my name that I have had to write just to retain my spot in this exclusive industry.
While they often revolve around lighter subjects like trending pets, instead of how supposedly “bad” a young woman looks, they still aren’t anything that I am particularly proud of or attached to.
I have also made several mistakes in my career, where I or the editors overseeing my work were not fully switched on about something, but you just have to live and learn.
Most of us juggle these unfavourable assignments, this “churnalism,” either because we are not senior enough to do what we want, or a job where we exclusively produce what we want doesn’t yet exist or hasn’t yet opened to us.
As a result, and for the sake of our careers, we often then have to be selective with what we show the world.
My website is a great example of this, where I share only a curated selection of my better work, my actual journalism, and hope that no one ever finds anything else I have had published.
The amount of journalists in Hawken’s comments section who are in similar positions confirmed to me how much of an industry-wide issue this is, and how much journalism has changed thanks to the emergence of “churnalism”.
The overarching issue of which is that while you may temporarily gain hits, it could result in a loss of trust from readers—not to mention the fact that it can perpetuate damaging narratives.
Having said all that about the lower-brow stories, I do think that it’s okay to talk and write about people’s pets or even aging and a celebrity’s makeup, just with more sensitivity, less judgement—and perhaps not angled around a beautiful 21-year-old just trying out a new hair colour.
There is still a place for those stories, even if they might not rank highly for you, and I would argue that many celebrities, public figures and brands rely on and even yearn for this kind of coverage.
I also don’t think we should shy away from platforming trending social media topics, just because they come across as “churn”-adjacent. If something is going on in society, and people are speaking about it in person or online, us choosing to cover it does not mean we are automatically bullying or targeting people.
A good example of this is the hidden hook in Hawken’s story: tweakments.
If that article wasn’t centred around Brown, and focused solely on rising rates of cosmetic surgery, injectables and all else in Gen Z with some statistics, yes, it may have offended someone somewhere, but all in all, it might have been an alright and even necessary piece of journalism.
So yes, there will probably always be someone writing about a celebrity’s hairdo.
You might wonder, how is this news? Well, it’s not supposed to be.
Some things, at the end of the day, however random they might seem will always be of interest to some readers.
The reason why “churn” is often prioritised, or why is stays on the editorial agenda despite journalists pleading to write ambitious features with longer deadlines, is because they get good traffic, which means people do want to read them.
And sadly, this means that some people do want to read trashy things about a celebrity’s looks.
This is why Brown has helped us by using her enormous platform to speak up, to get us talking about how damaging “churnalism” can be, and why we should try to stop further perpetuating the misogyny women in the limelight, and subsequently women out of the spotlight, face.
My concern is that Brown's video won't be the last, and that one day there will be another journalist, like Hawken, who suddenly finds themselves in the centre of a hate storm, being inundated with death threats from a mega-star’s mega-fans.
Hawken said in her apology video that Brown’s bravery to speak out prompted her to resign, and to begin focusing on work that is more authentic to herself.
I really respect that, and the interaction between the two women has prompted me to do better too.
While I don’t have any articles shaming other women to my name—I am now committed to taking a breath before writing anything, to really think about whether it could hurt or harm readers, or how sensitively it should be handled.
The backlash against the named journalists reminded me that while I may always be forced to write or speak about something that I’m not interested, that isn’t highbrow or worth my two university degrees, or that is just a bit silly and embarrassing—our moral codes shouldn’t be flexible, and that we should always feel brave enough to say no if we can clearly see how problematic a story could be.
At the end of the day, Hawken resigned and took responsibility, but did her editors?
One of the main points that Brown made in her video was that we should be supporting and uplifting women in lifestyle coverage, and perhaps her star quality will prompt editors and directors to stop commissioning “churn” and listen.
As Brown put it in her video, “Let’s do better.”
THIS IS AN OPINION PIECE TAKEN FROM MY SUBSTACK NEWSLETTER, THE THOUGHT BUBBLE.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE THOUGHT BUBBLE HERE: https://substack.com/home/post/p-158640404.
Commentaires