Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: social media

  • Media: freedom of or freedom from?

    August 2024

    Last month, a story appeared in the i that a deal had been struck between the Labour party and the Murdochs to the effect that if they regained power, they would soft pedal on media reform and not launch Leveson II. The Murdochs in return offered to go easy on the Labour party during the election campaign. Of course, the days when newspapers could claim ‘it was the Sun wot won it’ are gone such has been the decline in readership, so although the Murdoch tabloids at least did go easy on Labour, the effect would have been small such was the distaste for the Conservatives.

    Nevertheless, it does reveal how media groups and their owners feel able to call the shots as far as our political process is concerned. Newsgroup denied the story of course but it reappears in the September issue of the Byline Times along with a series of other articles mainly around the media’s role in the recent riots. Another demand by the Murdochs is for the abolition of the much hated BBC. Cameron and Osborne obliged to a degree by making life as difficult as possible for the Corporation: cutting their funding, making them pay for the World Service previously funded by the Foreign Office, putting their people on the board and a host of other actions. The Right Wing press carried on a sustained campaign against the Licence Fee and the BBC generally and even Channel 4 – no stranger to threats to its own existence by the previous government – devoted over half a recent news programme to the contested claims by a Strictly Come Dancing participant. Strangely, Krishnan Guru-Murthy did not find time to mention the alleged bullying and sexual harassment going on along the corridor in his own newsroom.

    The press and the media generally like to claim that we have a free press and that society is the better for it. It is based on the assumption that politicians are venal, dishonest characters, constantly on the look out for their own interests and it is only the stalwart activities of intrepid newshounds and journalists who uncover this venality and incompetence to keep us informed. Were that so. The increasing reality is that it is media owners who are the venal ones and have been carrying on a monstrous programme of illegal activities, not to uncover untoward goings on by our political masters, but to serve up tittle-tattle about the private lives of sports people, actors and others in the public eye.

    What Leveson showed was the sheer scale of this illegality with homes broken into, phones hacked, medical records accessed and bank accounts blagged. The police, and in particular the Metropolitan Police, were willing parties to this illegality accepting bribes from media people to give access to their information. There was even a ‘going rate’ for this and the corruption led all the way up to the senior ranks. Huge sums – reportedly in excess of £1 billion – have been paid to keep this out of the public eye by paying into court sufficient sums to make it too risky for claimants to pursue their cases. They then have to sign non-disclosure agreements. Our judiciary seem only too happy for this perversion of justice to continue.

    It can hardly have escaped anyone’s notice – except for the odd cave dweller that is – that the media have been carrying on a relentless programme of demonising Muslims and in recent years, boat people. There may indeed be arguments here about resources and there are indeed problems with disbursal of immigrants to places which are already struggling but with insufficient funding. But the never-ending attacks and casting people arriving here as criminals and likely terrorists have played a part in shaping the political weather. They have fostered the claims that immigrants are the reason our other services are underfunded. Boat people became one of the main focuses of the election and played a significant part in the election of Reform party MPs including Nigel Farage.

    Worse, was the climate created added to social media disinformation must have been a key factor in the riots following the Southport murders. But any kind of recognition of this by the media players is for the birds. As Mic Wright puts it in the Byline Times, ‘The Daily Mail’s front page is where irony goes to die’. Suddenly, he goes on ‘years of headlines stoking fear about and hatred towards immigrants the terrifying ‘other’ has been swept from its collective memory’.

    Elon Musk has attracted a high degree of opprobrium but the groundwork, the relentless articles and headlines over many years demonising immigrants by the tabloids is not something which gets much of an airing not least by themselves. No turning the spotlight on their own actions.

    More importantly, politicians do not dare to call them out either. Such is their (the media’s) power to monster anyone who stands up to them or who calls out their activities means, in effect, politicians have to tread very carefully indeed. It is not an exaggeration to say there is a climate of fear.

    In our Democracy Café debates, we often lament the media both the nationals, the Salisbury Journal and TV. The tabloids are frequently mentioned but the Daily Telegraph – a once fine paper – comes in for comment as well. Entire stories – the Paradise Papers for example – are missing from its pages. Highly selective reporting and naked bias where factual reporting is needed has become routine. The result of this activity is a less than well informed populace. This matters in terms of how choices are made and hence voting and the working of our democracy.

    We need to rethink our attitudes to the media and although social media is in the spotlight at the moment, the role of print media and their online versions, in creating a climate distrust and enmity towards foreigners of all kinds is a significant factor in shaping the political climate. Politicians have become their creatures: Tony Blair rushing half way round the world to cosy up to Murdoch, Sir Keir Starmer doing a deal with him to shelve the second stage of Leveson and David Cameron and George Osborne doing their best to make life difficult for the BBC, are all examples of media barons calling the shots.

    Perhaps we need to think more about our freedom from the press not just their refrain of freedom of the press.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café: August

    August 2024

    The well attended café took place a week or so after the riots erupted in Southport following the murder of three little girls and the attempted murder of eight others. This sparked off disturbances all around England with a massive police presence to try and keep control. Those events were the focus of the two topics we discussed.

    The first was is multi-culturalism going to be possible in the UK? A feature of the riots was attacks on hotels housing refugees and asylum seekers and a rumour that the boy arrested for the murders was a Muslim and had arrived in the UK by boat, neither of which was true. Some were quick to point out that they were in fact more optimistic now especially following the turn out of large numbers of people to defend mosques and to protect their communities from violence generally. It was noted there was a long history of attacks on ‘other’ groups. The demonisation of vulnerable groups seen to be to blame for society’s shortfalls has a long history.

    The debate turned to culture and it was noted the disturbances took place in England. It was suggested that this might be because the English are uncertain about their cultural identity. The other nations were much clearer on this point: the Scots, Welsh and Irish have a range of cultural memes with which to identify. Even Morris dancers were thought to be a bit of a ‘joke’ by some it was suggested.

    “The English are uncertain of their cultural identity”

    It was suggested that the recent disturbances have had a kind of benefit in bringing the ‘cancer’ of racism into the open. The seemingly respectable views of people like Nigel Farage were seen for what they were having only a veneer of respectability. Culture was also a shifting concept as times changed. It was noted for example that 60% of those born in London were the offspring of parents born outside the UK – a change in culture was inevitable therefore.

    Several pointed out that there was a danger of seeing this as an exclusively English problem. Yugoslavia was a multi ethnic state then disintegrated into separate groups following the death of Marshal Tito. There were problems of this nature in Germany. It was noted that the many ethnic groups living in Southampton congregated in specific areas according to their origins.

    The beliefs were quite strong and we heard an anecdote about a chance encounter in the street in Salisbury where a man, having recovered from a stumble, suddenly said ‘the country was too small’ in a discussion about the riots and ‘we cannot have any more coming in’. He was asked if he could trace his lineage back to 1066 whereupon he decided to leave (the conversation, not the country). David Olusoga’s comments on R4 saying that the riots and attacks were racist and were not an expression of legitimate concerns.

    The role of politicians – in particular Conservative ones such as Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Danny Kruger and Rishi Sunak – in stirring up popular resentment towards refugees and the boat people should not be forgotten. Their negative approach to asylum seekers was disgraceful someone thought and a reluctance to accept our obligations in this regard not acceptable. The idea that those in power needed to keep people divided was suggested as an underlying motivation. Was the social contract broken? There was hope the new government will be different. Immigration was always mentioned in terms of being a ‘problem’ and something to be minimised but Britain was an ageing population with a below replacement birth rate. We needed these people.

    Britain had and ageing population and needed immigrants

    The problem of the underperformance of white working class boys was introduced. They performed poorly in education terms and it was their resentments which might have been an element in recent events. Many of them thought it unmasculine to study for exams and this was a factor. Reports of several generations where no one has worked was mentioned. In the second discussion (below) but it is more relevant here, was the subject of agency. Many people lacked a sense of doing something worthwhile which was perhaps linked to the education point. Some of the mis- and disinformation which the social media people promoted depended on the notion that we know something you don’t. More critical thinking might be an answer to this.

    Of course it was not all bad news and the performance of Team GB in the Olympics was mentioned as a positive. A local school, Manor Fields, was a good example of multi-culturism in action.

    The second discussion was in a sense an extension of this topic and focused on social media in particular. A feature of the riots has been the role of X and Telegram in particular in spreading false stories about what happened in Southport. Elon Musk himself has also entered the fray with some inflammatory statements. The questions for debate were should media power be taken away from irresponsible people? and should [the government] be able to legally shut down websites?

    We were reminded straight away that when the internet was introduced all those years ago, it was seen in positive terms and it enable information and news to be posted straight away and without the sanction or censorship of governments or press agencies. As time has gone by however that freedom has been eroded.

    What is the primary purpose of internet companies? Answer: make money and to do that they had to keep you engaged. This was done by using algorithms to supply you with information related to your search interest. This process was the first step to radicalisation. The website Mastodon – which did not do this – was mentioned.

    We were reminded that after the 2011 riots, there was concern then expressed by the role of the web but the government was reluctant to take action. Will it be the same this time?

    The essential question was asked: why do people want to spread disinformation. What was their motivation? In relation to Elon Musk, his role of being both owner and contributor was seen as ‘crossing a line’ however, it should be noted that the press barons have been doing just that for some considerable time. Many advertisers stopped advertising on X in the light of some of the material finding its way onto it and a fall in revenue might affect its future commercial prospects.

    A key point was the power of the written word: if people see something in print they give it great credence. A counter argument was the power of the spoken word as well and Hitler was mentioned who had honed his speaking abilities acting for a government agency and was able to move large audiences with his oratorical skill. It was pointed out that it was easier to promote disinformation via social media which could be done in an instant, whereas a book for example took a great deal of time and things like references had to be provided.

    Someone thought that greater democratisation of the internet brought with it greater responsibility. It was a complex area and states wanted the companies to moderate their content and hence police them for not doing this adequately. It was also pointed out that ‘moderation’ went both ways: some companies were fixing algorithms to block out mentions of the conflict in Gaza – as well as child porn. The idea of unfettered access to events as they happened without the role of intermediaries and censorship was not being fulfilled.

    The News Agents podcasts were mentioned positively (@thenewsagents) as well as Channel3News the latter which was claimed to have played a key role in the spread of disinformation. It was a convincing and professionally produced site.

    It was not clear whether we were really tackling the question about banning these sites. We were reminded that attempts to ban people or ideas was not always successful or even wise. When the BBC invited Nick Griffin onto Question Time there was a huge furore and press anger. But, exposing his views to public view and criticism effectively ended his influence overnight.

    Peter Curbishley

    The next meeting is on 14 September.

    Guardian piece about children being taught about social media

  • Democracy Café: July

    The chosen topic this month was ‘how to repair our broken society?’ The question was inspired by recent feelings of divisions in society which seem quite deep and unbridgeable. There was a sense that since 2008 it had got worse. Everyone seemed to be looking for scapegoats and Covid seemed to have made it worse still. We were reminded it wasn’t just the UK: look at the USA and the events surrounding the Trump presidency. On PBS TV the previous night, there was a programme about anarchist groups in the USA and their role in the storming of the Capitol. The far right seemed to be making progress in several countries, for instance, Hungary.

    Opinion seemed more polarised. One person felt that the right wing had become more radical and that if you believed in broadly left wing causes you were somehow deemed unpatriotic. Those who shouted the loudest were the ones who got heard. This seemed to create sense of tribalism. There were likely to be large numbers of people on the other hand, who were perhaps the silent majority whose voices were not always heard.

    Inevitably social media was mentioned and the way it was able to magnify voices and to create echo chambers. However, it was pointed out that this media did give the opportunity for people, who previously may not have been able to get their views across, to express themselves. Anonymity emboldened people it was noted. Perhaps there was a need for more curiosity it was suggested and the need for people to deliberately explore alternative views to break out of (their) echo chamber.

    Brexit made an appearance and it was noted that friendships had ended because of it and families were also fractured. It seems that not just society was broken but there were breaks at the individual level as well.

    Was it something to do with how the brain works someone wondered? The world was complex and yet we needed simple solutions to enable to understand and make sense of it.

    Should ideas and methods of self-analysis be taught at school? Surrounded by all this ‘noise,’ children and young people needed these skills to be able to question what was coming at them.

    The concept of the topic was questioned. ‘Repair’ implied that the society was once whole and unbroken and was now in need of repair. Our society has always been divided and in a sense broken. There have always been powerful people and groups who controlled the levers of power. For centuries we were essentially feudal. The industrial revolution created huge disparities in wealth and enormous poverty and misery for the majority. Burke’s concept of ‘little platoons’ was mentioned in this regard.

    The conclusion was that although we lived in peaceful times (according to Stephen Pinker) we are perhaps more divided now.

    The second question was: ‘Are we all hypocrites, if so does it matter and can it be beneficial?’ The first point to clear up was the meaning of the word ‘hypocrite’. One definition has it that a hypocrite is someone who expresses certain moral, political or religious beliefs whose actions belie those beliefs. The second, more common use is simply someone who fails to live up to their expressed moral beliefs and it is the second definition that the question was intended.

    It was argued that in this sense the gap between beliefs and action can act as an incentive to close the gap. An example given was someone who is persuaded by moral and environmental arguments against eating meat but continues to eat meat. However, this hypocritical position may encourage the person to eat less meat and then only free range – maybe eventually given up meat altogether.

    A wide-ranging deliberation followed that took in motivations and intentions and freewill versus determinism. One interesting question was whether we can ever know our motivations and desires because they spring unbidden from our unconscious. This prompted a common thread about self-awareness to the extent that the more you know about yourself more likely it is that you might be able to identify your motivations and intentions and choose the ones you want to deploy. Self-awareness, it was claimed, enables you to make the change you want to make.

    Another interesting suggestion was that you should stop worrying about your intentions and consider only the impact of your actions on the grounds that good intentions on their own are not enough because they can go horribly wrong. There was also some discussion about whether all intentions are in some sense egoistic or self-centred or whether at least some can be altruistic in nature.

    It was pointed out that we were in danger of letting politicians off the hook for being hypocrites because they are human like the rest of us, but perhaps that referred to the first definition of hypocrisy rather than the second.

    The last word goes to the political journalist Michael Gerson: “Being a moral person is a struggle which everyone repeatedly fails, becoming a hypocrite in each of those moments. A just and peaceful society depends on hypocrites who ultimately refuse to abandon the ideals they betray.”

    Peter Curbishley; Dickie Bellringer