CITIZEN CAMERON 107
contained in the disclosure. It goes without saying that Cameron’s supporters who
were also incidentally tweeting and writing about the scandal were contributing to the
proliferation of the media spectacle and trying to assuage its negative impact on
Cameron’s political career. However an intense media polarization with an increased
amount of traffic such as this, does not on its own ensure that the hashtag becomes
scandalous.
Meagher (2015), associate editor of Labour Uncut, rubbished the story while
simultaneously launching a scathing critique of the weaknesses of Cameron and the
Conservative Party in general. However, a scandal requires an unquestioned
obedience to the disclosure without which the elements of shock and awe are absent.
There is, at times, a willingness to believe in the disclosure of a scandal regardless of
any verifiable evidence and more to do with the dramatization of the discourse. This
is because a narrative has the power to dispel by “showing or reconstructing the
original transgression” (Ekström and Johansson 2008: 77). For the scandal to
effectively function it has to invite reactions and discourse from a section of the
public that are convinced by it, or it remains simply rumour.
However, the narrative that ushers in this readiness to believe has little to do with the
scandal’s primary source. Ashcroft and Oakeshott’s article itself it is distinctly
unconvincing. The anecdote became instantly more credible in gossip than in the
biography. This is further testimony to Warner and by extension to Ehrat’s hypothesis
of the scandalicity of the scandal itself. But how do we account for this transition
from rumour to scandal? Sabato, Stencel and Lichter, in their case study of Monica
Lewinsky’s alleged semen-stained dress, show how it was “eventually proved to be
true but was widely reported – and even incorrectly debunked before there was
sufficient sourcing for the public to judge the value of the information” (2000:
31).The Lewinsky affair in this respect was already a media spectacle and it would
have been all too convenient for people to believe in the existence of the dress. The
scandal had already provided a fertile platform for the public to believe in the
existence of a semen-stained dress (and to whom the semen belonged). Yet prior to
proof, a wholehearted willingness to believe was arguably lacking. PigGate, however,