Mischievous Intent a Feature by loud7@enternet.com.a (Craig Garrett) In 1996 I interviewed Matthew Thompson, self-confessed mischief maker, about a prank he played on the Australian mass media. ìItís all about ideas and not letting people fall into the safety of their own narrow beliefs. I think itís important to stir up trouble, you know, for a healthy society.î - Matthew Thompson. Timothy Leary once professed that to undermine an argument, one should agree with what one is arguing against and then take that stance to the extreme. In 1992, while listening to Alan Jones (ëThe Parrotí), Matthew Thompson, self-confessed mischief-maker, became annoyed by ëThe Parrotísí verbal onslaught blaming band names (specifically the Hard-ons), for the woes of young people and for societyís ills in general. Matthew, then 21, put Timothy Learyís philosophy into practice. He wrote letters to a number of newspapers outlining an extreme stance against offensive T-shirts; and he created a mythical group: Young People Against Heavy Metal T-shirts (YPAHMTS), with himself as leader. In the letters he stated that not all young people are ëloutsí and that a group of clean-cut young people are out to make a stand. Matthew posted the letters on a whim, believing no newspaper would print a ìstupid letter about such a trivial issueî. The first letter was published in the Sydney Morning Herald. Then a few days later the TeleMirror published another of his letters. Matthew wrote: ì...I wish to make it known to the community that not all young people are reckless, disrespectful, elderly-hating, drug-taking louts...I think many young people have shown remarkable responsibility towards the environment and now it is time for young people to clean themselves up...This means stopping socially and personally damaging activities such as drinking, swearing, taking drugs and wearing heavy metal T-shirts...Heavy metal T-shirts are an affront to the elderly, who are our ancestors and the forebears of todayís society.î A number of ëmainstreamí media outlets picked up the story and devoted column space and air time to the issue. Matthew received an interview offer from Good Morning Australia (GMA). Hinch then ëcourtedí Matthew for his story. The TeleMirror asked for more information so they could do a follow up story. People Magazine, 2BL and 2RR showed interest and began covering the story. Triple J then asked him to appear on the ëMaynardí show and finally, Couchman asked if Matthew would appear on it. As the hoax grew, more and more people, including the media, became sucked in. The TeleMirror invented conflict and ëfoundí another group opposed to YPAHMTS. People wrote in to newspapers and magazines commenting on YPAHMTS. Some praised Matthew for his efforts, while others condemned him. One described him as: ì...more dangerous to our society than the people you are trying to persecute...î A Sydney heavy metal magazine even awarded Matthew their ëloser of the weekí award. Matthew was eventually interviewed on Hinch, Couchman, Triple J and 2RR, who broadcast an 11 hour heavy metal show. Each of the programs fed off each other. None really made too much of an effort to do any research, apart from reading articles, watching interviews or listening to talkback radio of other media outlets. ìThey didnít seem to want to know the truth,î Matthew observed, ìthey were more interested in creating their own agenda.î During these interviews Matthew attempted to explain his point of view - essentially he was ignored. While taping the Hinch interview, Matthew explained an ëextremeí idea outlining how kids can go out into the desert and attend camps run by YPAHMTS. The kids were only allowed to wear plain T-shirts, listen to music that YPAHMTS supplied and read material YPAHMTS gave them. They would be totally cut off from the ëdeviant influencesí that heavy metal T-shirts represent. These parts of the interview were cut from the final edit and the interview that went to air focused in on the narrow media-created agenda: banning offensive, heavy metal T-shirts. The media began portraying Matthew as the leader of a ëgrowing groupí wanting to ban all heavy metal T-shirts, when all Matthew advocated was for people to begin thinking about what they wear. The media created something out of nothing. His stance, that heavy metal T-shirts are offensive, was conveniently changed by the media into a stance calling for the banning of all offensive T-shirts. At no stage did Matthew ever mention banning, he just advocated choice, stating ìif you want to wear an offensive T-shirt, make it yourself, rather than paying twenty-five dollars to advertise what is basically a multinational recording company.î Matthew found it difficult to keep a straight face while being interviewed by the so-called, serious media. ìI played the part as head of YPAHMTS on the side of lunacy, rather than trying to be serious about the issue. I saw the interviews as an opportunity to cut through the crap and try to provoke people, rather than just putting the information out there. It was hard to keep a straight face.î Even though he often gave interviews with enormous, sly grins on his face only one person seemed to catch onto what Matthew was doing. Before being interviewed on the Maynard show on Triple J, the producer told him, ìI donít know exactly what youíre doing, but itís pretty good...but I donít know exactly what it is.î The media never really delved deeper than the superficial. Something which Matthew partially expected. What he didnít expect or predict was the audience reaction. The audience jumped on one of two bandwagons and were either with Matthew or against him - but they believed it. In the beginning the joke was supposed to be on the media, but it was beginning to look as if the joke was on everybody. ì...I got right against the media for a while, when I was doing it [the hoax], then the audience started to really annoy me as well, because they were acting just as simplistically as the media...no one was pausing to think. I found that if a person presents as an ëexpertí about an issue, the media and the audience will be more likely to believe whatever that person is saying. I gained credibility because I had an organisation behind me. YPAHMTS gave me credibility in the eyes of those listening, reading and watching. The fact that the organisation didnít exist escaped everyone. At no stage was I asked to produce evidence of the existence of the group, nor was I asked to back up or justify anything I was saying, the media and the audience simply reacted to my wordsî. He began trying to get people to question what they do, how they dress, and what they think. He wanted the audience to question the media, themselves and YPAHMTS; so they would begin to wonder about everything that is presented to them by the media. Matthew wanted the audience to begin looking deeper into issues and events portrayed by the media on a day-to-day basis, but nobody really questioned him or tried to understand what he was saying. The media skimmed over the issue and instead of questioning his validity, they asked him questions about how many people were in the group, did he plan to get into politics and what was his next move? All the audience did was react to what they were fed by the media. It frustrated Matthew that people could be so narrow minded and willing to believe anything - especially considering the original letters were written as a joke. ìI decided to expose the hoax to show people that the media is not factual. If I left the hoax as a joke for only those who know, it would become trivial history and disappear forever. Those who had been taken in had to know theyíd been swindled. At this point it became vital to turn the insides of the hoax out, so that people would understand they had been taken for a rideî. ìI wrote an exposeí called Tabloid Whore. The name is representative of how I felt about the whole incident. I thought everyone who allowed themselves to be caught up in the hoax: the media, the audience and myself, was prostituting themselves. They sold any ideals they had for a bit of controversy.î In 1995 Matthew sent Tabloid Whore to The Independent Monthly Young Writer of the Year Competition. It won second prize, but was disqualified because he wrote under a pseudonym and interviewed himself. Matthew argued that it was not fiction because it actually happened, and The Independent Monthly argued that it was not fact either, so they could not give him the award. In 1996, he rewrote the article and sent it in again, and for the second time he won second prize, but before it could be published the magazine went broke. Matthew then sent Tabloid Whore to Media Watch in the hope that they would find it amusing and could give him a few ideas about where to get it published. They wrote back asking if he had any videos of any of the interviews because they would like to produce a segment on their show about pranks perpetrated on the media. He sent in some video footage and Media Watch put together a three or four minute exposeí of their own about pranks perpetrated on the media. The hoax was exposed! Those who had been taken in by the hoax, predictably, didnít react to the Media Watch story. The media conveniently ëforgotí, or ignored the issue; while the audience didnít react at all, reflecting what Matthew found to be ìtheir reliance on the media for thoughts and ideas.î If nothing else, Matthew Thompsonís hoax taught us to dispute what we see, hear and read. It exposed the effectiveness of the media as a propaganda machine; it revealed the inadequacies of the media to watch the watchers and act as the fourth estate; it highlighted the naivety of the audience as media-consumers; it showed how the audience has become passive, relying on the media to spoon-feed it information; it reminded us all to keep on questioning; and most importantly it should inspire others to do the same. Created on Sun, 21 Sep 1997 and last modified on Mon, 10 Nov 1997.

LOUDonline - http://www.loud.net.au - Fri, 10 Apr 1998