How BBC is inadvertently helping Tate brothers become more famous

Media coverage of worthless individuals like social media influencer Andrew Tate and crime gang members risks glamorising them in the eyes of young people.

Here what I have to say about this in my Scotsman column, published 14th April 2025.

My heart sank last week when I saw that one of our national newspapers was doing yet another feature on Glasgow gangsters, not thugs of old but present day hoodlums. It took me back to the 90s when ‘Gangster Glam’ was all the rage.

I thought we had learned and moved on from that, but apparently not. It was the usual format, edgy snatched photographs, together with a rundown of their nicknames, their record of bad deeds, and their gang affiliations.

Anyone who has had contact with these people or has suffered at their hands knows they are lowlife predators but you wouldn’t have guessed that from the coverage.

The individuals concerned were not openly lauded, of course, but there was an unmistakable dash of dark glamour about the piece. These men were outlaws and undoubtedly attractive to an impressionable few.

And I wondered about the thinking behind the piece. Was it designed to inform or titillate, and what was the message to impressionable young men? For sure, the gangsters featured would have enjoyed their time in the limelight. Monstrous egos are usually part of the makeup of such criminals.

About the same time I saw a news piece on the BBC about the now infamous Tate brothers, when they held a seemingly impromptu press conference during which they declared their innocence of all allegations, while an obviously pre-invited press pack bayed for more.

As far as I can tell the Tate brothers are only famous for being famous, so-called influencers who seem to have made a fortune by posting vacuous, hedonistic lifestyle videos on their social media site.

And I wondered what thinking was behind our mainstream media in deciding to cover such stories and such worthless people. Were they there to inform or were our media simply following online trends? And what was the likely effect on impressionable young people?

Both these examples came in the same week as the airing of the Netflix show Adolescence about a teenage boy turned killer by malign online influences. I have met a few young killers but even so, this was a hard watch, laying out the hidden dangers of the internet.

It is required viewing for all parents of young boys and girls, for we would be mistaken in believing this is a problem for boys only. But I do not believe it is a programme fit for children, bringing up kids in the internet age is difficult enough.

We know that, for all its wonders, the Internet carries considerable risk for impressionable young people. There is clear evidence of the harm that social media can do to, and it seems we cannot expect host sites to act responsibly. I doubt that even protective online safety legislation will be wholly effective.

Ultimately it is for parents to be aware and empowered to protect their children. Indeed they are the only ones who can do it.

But they need our help. Smart phones should be banned in all schools and our mainstream media and broadcasters should think long and hard before publicising gangsters and chancers.