What is Truth? Leveson, Elkington and the disinformation revolution
 

Lord Leveson's report has attracted criticism from many quarters. The victims of phone-hacking and press intrusion found it too lenient. The Press largely rejected the suggestion of statutory regulation. Politicians were divided in their response but were united in saying that the estimated £5.6 million 8 month inquiry failed in some respect, that they would have done a "better" job than the learned judge given a couple of hours and the back of an envelope to report on.

Many responses demonstrate the strength of self-interest, either a reluctance or inability to examine issues objectively and a disregard for the truth.

Defenders of Leveson argue that the regulatory body he proposes would offer people genuine choice – to access "kitemarked" news content from a regulated provider or to access unregulated sources beyond that on Twitter, Facebook etc. Media organisations would stand to benefit from being regulated if this "kitemark" came to be recognised as a symbol of quality and truth; they would play by the rules if breaking them meant losing the stamp of authority.

Yet Leveson makes an assumption, that most people value the truth and will choose it over a convenient lie. Sadly, the response to his report suggests that this assumption may be unwarranted. A judicial inquiry is, ostensably, designed to arrive at the truth and make independent, balanced recommendations on that basis – however it seems obvious that nobody really wants this. Most people want inquiries to do no more than give the official stamp to their own point of view and change things in their own interests….

For one example of this, on Monday night BBC Inside Out exposed the story of David Elkington who had obtained money and lots of publicity, as well as the trust of Royalty, celebrities and even some genuine scholars, by developing a sensational theory about fake archaeological artifacts and propounding it with the authority of an impressive range of academic qualifications he did not actually posess. For years journalists and the general public had been so excited by his story that they were only too happy to accept that he was a "Professor", a famous author and expert. Ironically, he claimed to have access to texts which would give us a window into a 1st Century world, a world in which truth was as much of a thorny issue as it is today. As Pilate jested, "What is Truth?" Far from having moved on, many people today seem to be as callously pragmatic, have as hazy a grip on reality and have as little care for their situation as the Roman governor.

We could see the Elkington affair as a small-scale example of the general media failures which led to Leveson, of what happens when the desire for market-share trumps desire for truth. The lie is perpetuated up to the point when exposing it becomes more interesting – and thus more profitable. Alternatively, we could see it as illustrative of how many people no longer seem to care about the truth and are willing to "buy into" anything which seems interesting. Max Hastings' key objection to Press regulation has of course, been that it would render UK journalism like US journalism – dull (through being bound by lawyers to check facts and stick to the verifiable truth).

The media is not an alien anomaly, it is a mirror of society. The line between the journalist and the ordinary person is being eroded day by day and while we love to harangue the Press and blame it for everything from family breakdown to revolutionary wars, increasingly we are the press and the press is us, we are hypocritical and simply criticise ourselves. Many ordinary people are only too willing to believe and pass on exciting information without checking it and even feel indignant when they are challenged, as happenned to the retweeters in the recent MacAlpine case. What is the difference between telling a lie and choosing to believe and pass one on without troubling to check the facts? As WK Clifford suggested:

"It is always and altogether wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence."
 

When we buy a newspaper knowing that its reporting is likely to be salacious, when we buy a sensationalist book or buy into the thesis of a dramatic documentary, when we book tickets to listen to self-styled personalities expounding on areas beyond their expertise we show ourselves to be complicit in what has become a disinformation revolution.

The problem with self-regulation of the Press will be that while it may limit wrongdoing such as could already be limited by a non-corrupt police enforcing the law, it will have little effect on the many falsehoods perpetuated by actively negligent reporting, which can usually be attributed to human error and apologised for in the small print on page 23. Further, there are few grounds to suppose that a press-regulator would be more willing or able to defend its reputation against those who claim its authority falsely than the Elkington case suggests that existing regulatory bodies, from schools and universities to famous museums and examination boards, are.

The only real and lasting solution to the problems we face in the media is to address the wider problems in society that the media reflects. If people could be persuaded to respect and value the truth and choose it over the glossy lie then there would be little market for salacious reporting. Philosophy stands for the truth, whatever that may be. It is never easy, is often uncomfortable and inconvenient and rarely glossy! It is deeply countercultural in a society dominated by 140 character soundbites of gossip. However it remains to lovers of wisdom to resist relativism, expose lies and "call things by their proper names", encouraging and enabling all people to self-regulate and stop fuelling the disinformation revolution.

Charlotte Vardy speaks at "The Puzzle of Ethics" conferences at 10 venues across the UK, starting in York on 4th December.

http://www.candleconferences.com/

"Ethics Matters" by Peter and Charlotte Vardy was published by SCM Press on 30th November

Image © Peter Baron The Lottery Winner, Newcastle, Hayward Gallery