Media
Comical as it might seem most news outlets maintain the pretence of sticking to the following journalistic principles:
1. Strive to tell the truth.
2. Strive to reflect opinion.
At first this might sound worthy and sensible enough, the only obvious problem being the sincerity of the striving. How hard does the Murdoch press really strive to tell the truth about anything in the world?
However this masks a deeper problem, one well-illustrated by the recent BNP victories. What if principles one and two conflict? What if a section of the public starts believing something mistaken? Is it still the media’s duty to reflect it back at the rest of us, perpetuate the error? Shouldn’t principle one always trump principle two?
The standard defence against this is context. The BBC would argue that it makes clear when its output is fact-based and when it is ‘just’ opinion: Newsreaders read facts, Question Time panellists express opinions – and the public is fully aware of the distinction.
Certainly if you ask the producers of Question Time why a fruitcake like Melanie Phillips is persistently invited back they wouldn’t dare suggest it’s because she speaks the truth. You’ll be told that it is because her opinions reflect the views of a substantial section of the British public. Likewise there is no suggestion that the hang ‘em and flog ‘em brigade who dominate Radio Two phone-ins are painting an accurate portrait of Britain in the twenty-first century, only that they speak for millions of Britons.
Whatever the truth of this it remains highly problematic. Broadcasting or publishing falsity is still allowing falsity to calibrate the agenda, even when the audience is advised to take it all ‘with a pinch of salt’. Worse still as bogus opinion often yields a larger audience than painful truth frequently it is allowed to actually set the agenda.
It’s certainly possible to defend a great raft of lies like The Great Global Warming Swindle by citing principle two, but not without jettisoning principle one. For those who wish to continue driving and flying and consuming without restriction it was music to the ears. The delightful idea that the scientists had got it all wrong had wide appeal and led this ‘documentary’ to be sold across the globe, attaining audience and pundit attention the truth could only dream of.
But for all this interest it remains what it always was – a raft of lies. The fact that a sizeable audience is keen to hear that humans are not causing rising temperatures has no bearing on the wealth of evidence that we are. The fact that some lies are more palatable and saleable than the truth doesn’t make them any truer, or excuse passing them on.
Likewise, the fact that the BNP is gaining support doesn’t make its outpourings any more accurate or valid. Like Melanie Phillips, Nick Griffin would have us believe there’s a danger of Islamism sweeping to power in Britain. Sad to say a growing number of people seem to believe this too. But does that make it true, a valid concern?
Similarly, like Melanie Phillips, Nick Griffin sees multicultural Britain as a failed experiment, and the root of most social evil. Crime, it seems, is a recent import. The BNP want a return to the good old London prior to mass immigration, the London of Hogarth and Dickens, free from gangs, drugs and prostitution, safe for a lady to walk unaccompanied at night.
A great many evangelicals believe that Satan stalks the earth but few serious broadcasters would make that the starting point for debate. While it’s everyone’s right to wallow in fantasy there is nothing democratic about broadcasting falsehood, even when falsehood is gaining popularity. As with global warming there is probably a keener audience for bogus interpretations of social history than those that might cause the viewer to question their own country’s role in the world. Patriotism is far easier on the eye and ear than imperialism. The benevolence of Britain and the ingratitude and ineptitude of her colonial subjects makes far more comfortable viewing than tales of colonial brutality and ongoing exploitation. But comfortable isn’t the same as true.
While it would be unrealistic to suggest that Britain is slipping into fascism the methods of the far-right remain the same: Scapegoating sections of the community and playing-on existing prejudices. Like unscrupulous mainstream politicians, unscrupulous journalists and editors may see opportunity rather than danger in the new terms of debate. Rather than countering the lies they will assist in the beating down of a wider terrain of idiocy. Any criticism can be countered by citing principle two – their duty to reflect public opinion. The price of such talk will be high for many citizens, but worth paying for increased circulation and higher ratings.
