TRUTH MATTERS: IT CERTAINLY DOES AND THE RTE CAMPAIGN NEEDS TO OPEN UP

RTE’s Truth Matters campaign is praiseworthy. It wants to place RTE News as truthful and firmly opposed to misinformation, lies and nonsense. However, its basis is not at all clear. It could be the case that the existing service is being offered as more reliably true than its competitors or it could be the case that the existing service is changing in order to make it more reliably true. Clarification is needed.

At least two areas of concern should be openly confronted.

i) The isolation of news as the vehicle for truth.

ii) The relation between news reporting and truth.

i) RTE is by no means alone in fighting for conventional journalism against its increasingly successful competitors. The clash is characterised as serious, professional journalism versus the chaos and silliness of social media. Unfortunately there is a cover-up at the core of this. The narrative suggests that the likes of conspiracy theories sprang up fully formed with social media. They didn’t. They were propagated by journalism before the arrival of social media; Andrew Wakefield’s scam was created by conventional journalism and media. Indeed, it can be argued that uncritical or even supportive coverage of baseless nonsense groomed a belief in dangerous, anti-democratic guff. (This is expanded upon here: https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2021/03/09/from-reiki-to-conspiracy-journalism-and-the-grooming-of-a-threat-to-democracy/ )

It would be far more credible if the campaign admitted RTE’s unwitting role in creating the problem and highlighted the extent of the change now envisaged.

Worse, by isolating truth as a feature of news, RTE implies permission for the rest of their schedule to continue as before, i.e. there is no sign of corporate disapproval never mind a ban on uncritical, supportive treatment of anti-vax, anti-science, “alternative” or psychic nonsense in programmes lighter than news and current affairs. Incidentally, it may be the case that grooming in credulousness was largely carried out in popular light programmes. It is certainly the case that alternative – evidence free – therapies and treatments, and psychic beliefs continue to receive supportive coverage. It is downright odd to commit the news service to truth while encouraging other programmes to undermine that commitment.

ii) It is certainly news and certainly true when the utterances of a prominent figure are accurately reported. When those utterances are nonsense/untrue or in support of nonsense, an impartial report remains true but facilitates the spread of nonsense. This is not to say that that impartiality with its honourable, effective tradition should be abandoned; it is merely to state what journalists know full well, that an impartial report can be incompatible with telling the truth.

Put another way and in the context of the RTE Truth Matters initiative, impartiality must now explicitly involve exposition of lies, cover-ups, scams, conspiracy fantasies and nonsense. Some journalists will argue that impartiality is their fundamental, immutable value. They have a point. At its best it prevents the intrusion of personal views into reporting but at its worst it provides a cloak of respectability for sharing bogus information. Bluntly, if Truth Matters is to be taken seriously, RTE needs to spell out what if anything has changed in news reporting.

FROM REIKI TO CONSPIRACY: JOURNALISM AND THE GROOMING OF A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY

It’s commonly believed that conspiracy theories sprang fully formed from nothing and that it happened in recent years. That’s not the case. They are the outcome of years of development, fostered by media professionals. These days many journalists scramble to present their profession as a force firmly on the side of sweet reason, standing against destructive nonsense but that’s a present necessity and until relatively recently they were – with some exceptions – promoting its opposite.

Timescale is important. While a grasp of longer history is always valuable, in this instance the relevant timescale is mere decades, certainly within the careers of many working today. In this context comparing the arrival of social media to Gutenberg is glib irrelevance and mention of 19^th and early 20^th century anti-vax is a diversion.

Those journalists who today struggle to rescue and restore their profession are to be praised. However, three things need to be said. Firstly, their credibility would be enhanced by talking about both the profession’s role in creating the problem in the first place and the reasons why they now have had to make a fundamental change. Secondly, such openness would increase the likelihood of their acceptance as an institution of democracy. Thirdly, revealing a dodgy past in relation to nonsense would serve as a warning, because when they provided publicity for small time chancers, they effectively groomed large numbers of people to think conspiracy theories make sense.

Here in brief is what happened. In recent decades journalists and other prominent citizens fostered a belief in “alternative” therapies and theories, the likes of Reiki, reflexology, numerology, homeopathy etc. These alternatives had just one thing in common: there was not a jot of supporting evidence. Gradually a small army of chancers aided by journalists mobilised a mass of people, people who at root saw no difference between evidence and anecdote, who thought that all opinions were equal and should not be challenged. (I’m entitled to my opinion.)

For many it was harmless fun but lack of evidence turned darkly serious as media spread Andrew Wakefield’s lies re autism. In Ireland coverage of anti-HPV immunisation scares stopped only when a brave and dying young woman spoke out, and RTE coverage of 5-G nonsense was stopped only when believers began to attack communication masts.*

Of course it’s not too late for journalism to recover, to side with ordinary reason against obvious nonsense, to become a dependable source for thinking, participative citizens but they should be assertive and acknowledge their part in creating nothing less than a threat to democracy.

Credulous people are routine material for comedy. When their numbers grew so large that they became a lucrative media audience and a constituency whose support could win an election or a referendum, their comedic value reduced. Democracy needs its fourth estate not to patronise and exploit the credulous but to provide a service for the participative citizen.

* This may be of interest: https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2020/04/26/rtes-decision-to-out-the-covid-5-g-myth-turns-a-spotlight-towards-professional-journalism/

RTE; Don’t drift back to traditions. Face the questions raised.

The appearance of RTE presenters and managers in flagrant defiance of Covid-19 obligations and all notions of common sense has prompted a familiar round of RTE bashing. At its core that’s a round in a struggle to privatise broadcasting or at least a major part of its funding.

The pity of it is that an opportunity is being wasted. Covid 19 together with Trump’s attempted coup have forced basic questions to the surface, questions about RTE’s coverage of public controversy. Rather than apologies, ducking and diving, and attempts to humiliate, there is a need to confront flaws in time-honoured practices and regulation.

However, something very blunt needs to be said at the outset. In present circumstances anyone in any walk of life who would attend a retirement party would have to be marked out as foolish or grossly out of touch with current events. That senior broadcasters and managers should be so marked raises not only doubts about them but also a fervent hope that competence and common sense across staff generally are not open to question.

1. The first Covid related challenge to old ways came when RTE was forced to break with impartial reporting in order to state openly that the 5-G scares were unhttps://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2020/04/26/rtes-decision-to-out-the-covid-5-g-myth-turns-a-spotlight-towards-professional-journalism/true. (A more complete account appears here: ) Up to this point RTE did not editorialise on public controversy but dutifully reported all. The next departure came when RTE joined many media outlets in saying explicitly that Donald Trump’s election claims were without evidence.

There are two possible courses now. The most likely is that the present contentious period will be allowed slide by and the national broadcaster will return to strict impartiality as per its legal obligations. The other course is to face up to a challenge: that extraordinary events have demonstrated a need to decide for truth and to consider changes to the Broadcasting Acts.

The role of mainstream media generally and of RTE in spreading unfounded nonsense from anti-vax through alternative therapies and miracle cures to homeopathy cannot be forgotten. Being blunt once more, Andrew Wakefield was well served by media reporting and to too great an extent he still is. In short, now is the time to oblige public service media to decide for truth or at the very least to highlight the fact that many claims have no evidential basis. Many indeed are scams that while entertaining should not be facilitated.

2. The second Covid related challenge to old ways came with the daft RTE retirement party. Critics of the RTE staff who flouted social distancing practice make the point that the presenters must now recuse themselves from media discussion of matters relating to covid 19.

It’s a fair point but if it were generalised, it has the potential utterly to change broadcast coverage of political controversy, e.g. a broadcaster on an extraordinary salary would be required to recuse themselves from media discussion of matters relating to income.

Think of the officious distancing from membership of a political party. It would be most unusual that a card-carrying member of a political party would present a public controversy and on the odd occasion it has happened their membership was highlighted, yet a presenter with an extraordinary salary can present a controversy which relates to incomes and attention is not drawn to their interest.

This is not the time to pillory the foolish or campaign for privatisation. It is time for fundamental thought – time to take a red pen to the law controlling broadcast coverage of public controversy.

Can journalism change or was that just a once-off Trump story

As Joe Biden inched towards 270, the institution that was journalism seemed at last to shift preceptively. Long used to news stories covered impartially, they now called a spade a spade or a lie a lie. Heretofore, they didn’t take sides; they simply reported.

It wasn’t as sudden as it might seem. Trump made it widespread and inevitable; his lies made impartial journalism look silly, extreme and irresponsible to the thinking people on whom journalism depends for its commercial survival. It remains to be seen if journalism will treat this explicit marking of lies as a once-off, stand-alone, Trump story and resume the impartial reporting of lies generally; or if it marks a change in journalism and its public service. Moreover, it must be added that impartiality is not something that can be abandoned lightly. It has honourable and sensible roots in history but the world changed and for decades now liars have known how to exploit impartial reporting by way of its rules and guidelines.

It may be that the earliest abandonment of impartial reporting was in Ireland when RTE decided explicitly to label the 5G myth a nonsense. The details are here: https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2020/04/26/rtes-decision-to-out-the-covid-5-g-myth-turns-a-spotlight-towards-professional-journalism/

It would be of enormous help in today’s world if journalism made an effort to save and redefine itself. Instead of trying to salvage an honoured place for news stories in this age, leaders in journalism should acknowledge its role in creating the problem. They provided years of respectful coverage of “alternative” nonsense, anti-vax, anti-science; in general they peddled a perverse grasp of anti-establishment. A great deal more is required now. If journalism is to change, it will be hard and the “news” conservatives will wallow and resist.

TIME TO PUT A SERVICE FOR THE ENGAGED CITIZEN INTO THE BROADCASTING ACTS

In Ireland there is a problem at the very core of the legislation and guidelines that govern broadcast coverage of public controversy. Despite their public service objectives, the Irish regulations are not overtly concerned with what citizens require. For that reason reform will have to involve a basic change, overturning the familiar practices of decades.

The difficulty with regulation as it stands now is that it serves those who appear on radio and TV and helps keep producers and journalists out of conflict with these contributors. In brief it could be put like this: if a broadcaster is fair to public figures and institutions, and is balanced in offering a rival perspective, everyone will be content. That “everyone”, however, does not refer to the audience, to citizens.

Now, broadcasters are highly competitive and commercial, and with on-line media ever increasing in importance, they will become more so. Whether state funded or not, they seek to maximise audience numbers. Their tendency merely to be commercial is constrained by a set of legal public service obligations. One of those obligations ensures that public controversy receives coverage, i.e. that news and current affairs feature strongly in their output. In other words, it is long accepted that coverage of public controversy is a public good which broadcasters must supply.

That coverage in turn has to be commercial, and in two senses. Firstly, public controversy is not the most obvious crowd pleaser. Secondly, there is nothing democratic about a small audience and there is a drive – while staying within the regulations – to attract as large an audience as possible.

The question that arises is who are the audience for public controversy. The easy answer is the Demos, all the citizens of the state. The difficulty of course is that many citizens are not interested while others are very interested and demanding. This reflects a traditional dilemma for public service broadcasters. Going back almost a century there is the requirement to achieve a viable content mix of entertainment, information and education. Much later came the realisation that there was a demand for two very different types of news service: one comprehensive for participative or republican citizens and another mainly entertaining but ringing an alarm bell if anything really serious was happening – for passive or liberal citizens who didn’t want to be bothered by politics.

It might be interesting to speculate how it came about that with everyone so aware that there was a dilemma concerning different audiences, the obligations for the treatment of public controversy came to focus so much on the establishment: the public figures and institutions, and the broadcasting/journalism profession. That, however, will have to be work for another day.

There is no feeble, uncontroversial way to put this: It is certainly undemocratic, if not completely ludicrous, to base public service obligations in relation to public discourse on the requirements of spokespersons and broadcasters. However, reform to make those obligations serve citizen requirements will mean deciding – at least within a part of overall output – to serve one audience rather than another.

Lest there be any confusion something needs emphasis at this point. There is not the slightest intention here to replace familiar, entertaining political coverage in news and interview form with a more serious minded approach. No matter how serious and demanding a citizen might be, without exception they like the entertaining approach and want it to continue.

Nothing is radical or odd in having a typical audience member in mind when broadcasting. It is commonplace to talk of addressing younger, older and all manner of different audiences; existing legislation requires service to minorities. Indeed, it would likely be daft even to consider the possibility that a broadcaster or journalist ever creates output with no one in mind. Occasionally it can go further with management providing a detailed profile of a typical member of a targeted audience.

However, when it comes to politics and public controversy, something strange happens: it is very often assumed that there is an undifferentiated audience, a Demos waiting to be addressed. The character, interests, outlook and political-communication requirements of that audience is assumed to be known.

Certainly an audience is being addressed and well-served but it is not the entire people. It is a part, the part that shares the general political outlook of the broadcasters, an outlook more basic than left-right division. Equally certainly the rest of the people have little choice but to make the best of what’s delivered, and because journalism generally can be poor and partisan, broadcast journalism tends to be recognised as relatively good.

Reform of legislation, therefore, will involve two radical breaks with tradition. Firstly, it will move to address the needs of the audience rather than programme participants. Indeed participants in a broadcast programme will be chosen on the basis of how best to serve an audience rather than the present practice of being fair to potential participants. Secondly – and it must be emphasised that this refers not to the entire service but to the delivery of broadcast politics – it will move to serve the needs of a particular type of audience rather than the entire national audience many of whom might express little or no interest in complex politics. The audience to be served in this case will very likely be a minority: those who are participative or republican citizens, those who want to be part of the public sphere, discussing all matters of political controversy and seeking broadcast coverage that will facilitate them, seeking the full range of perspectives, opinions, arguments and data to enable the republican citizen to explore, discuss, contribute and come to meaningful judgement on all matters affecting the republic.

There is nothing strange or new in seeking to serve the thinking, participative citizen; that’s always been the basic idea. What is new is the explicit recognition that all citizens do not share this participative level of interest and that serving any citizens by looking after the concerns of public figures and media staff is, well, frankly daft.

While republican reforms will replace decades-old rules designed to please – perhaps, appease – politicians, activists and journalists, it will not be necessary to have new complaints procedures to aid compliance; existing staff and processes will be fine as long as everyone involved understands the enormity of the change.

There are essentially just two entwined changes. Firstly, legislation needs to recognise the existence of republican citizens and to oblige the broadcaster to serve their specific political communication needs. Secondly, since the republican citizen is an active and conscious participant in the public sphere and wants to come to judgement on political controversies, legislation will oblige the broadcaster to deliver the necessary range and quality of data and – crucially – arguments.

1. Recognition that two distinct types of political journalism will need management

There are opposing pitfalls which have to be recognised. While no one wants an end to entertaining news and speculation about political celebrities and events, this admits a risk of trivialisation. A sensible approach would be to acknowledge the difficulty and place a formal onus on the broadcaster to deal with it. The stark reality is that there is a difference between the journalism which deals with political news, speculation, personalities and gossip and that which deals with political values, ideologies, theory and outcomes for citizens. The broadcaster can be made explicitly responsible for maintaining and managing the distinction in the interests of citizens.

2. The broadcaster will be obliged to deliver a service to the engaged/participative/republican citizen. This will mean a) an obligation to deliver arguments and to be responsible for their quality; and b) an obligation to have the selection of programme contributors determined by how best to deliver those arguments.

It is important to be clear on the enormity of the change required. The overwhelming majority of journalists see their role as merely reporting and assume little responsibility for the informative quality of what is reported. To burden the broadcaster (and by implication the staff employed) with responsibility for public discourse is a radical departure. This can be said despite the existing obligation to public discourse and journalists’ claims to public service because up to now it has been accepted that news delivery is sufficient.

Explicit Guidelines

* Coverage must address all political controversies and there can be no question of editorial picking and choosing other than that motivated by a commitment to the citizen seeking the fullest engagement. For fear a controversy might be overlooked, citizen initiative/suggestion will be sought and in the event of disputes, the matter can be considered as a Broadcasting Complaint.

* Appearances on politics programmes will be determined by contribution to a debate rather than any affiliation.

* Developed viewpoints which challenge a prevailing orthodoxy will be treated as especially useful.

* Complexity beyond the traditional notion of balance will be assumed and the fullest range of viewpoints will be sought and presented.

* Verifiable truth will be an overriding consideration.

* Interests will be explored, uncovered and made clear. That is to say, it will be assumed that different proposals will have better outcomes for some rather than others and it will be accepted that such information is vital for the citizen. In other words, when a policy or policy suggestion becomes a matter for discussion, the likely winners and losers will have to be made plain.

When discussion involves incomes or incomes policy, a contributor’s income if known will be stated; if not known, that will be stated.

* It would never be satisfactory in a democracy that those charged with nourishing the public sphere would dismiss an enquiry by recourse to simple “editorial judgement”. Excluding the vexatious or frivolous, all requests to explain an editorial decision or policy will be answered fully. Any dispute arising may be referred to the complaints procedure.

* Suggestions (accompanied by data) that a pattern of editorial decisions amount to an effective editorial policy will be similarly treated.

* A very short list of morally repugnant viewpoints will be developed, the purpose being to state that they will never be normalised. On all occasions where a programme contributor holds such a view or is a member of a group/party holding such a view, Broadcasters will be required to make that clear. For example, without a broadcaster’s clarifying comment, a racist will not be permitted to present themselves as normal by contributing to a discussion on, say, health.

* Broadcasters will not allow reliance on authority (e.g. religion) but will demand argument.

* Broadcasters will not permit contributors merely to “call-on” government to take action. In money matters this will demand clarity on priorities and funding either by a corresponding level of cuts to named spending or of new revenues.

* Broadcasters will ensure that mathematical, scientific, economic and other claims are competent.

* Broadcasters will ensure that alternative/complementary therapies are rigorously questioned and that they are not granted equivalence with science or medicine.

* With such a long tradition of politics being regarded predominantly as news and speculation about the activities of politicians, the change to more demanding – perhaps, theoretical – politics will have to be effected without undermining the traditional and frankly entertaining approach. There should, therefore, be two distinct editors: a politics editor charged with taking care of the republican citizen and a political affairs editor looking after news about politicians (leadership challenges, speculation about elections and the like) for a more general audience. (An early draft of this piece referred to the latter post as a “political gossip editor”!) It hardly needs to be said that the broadcaster will be required to indicate which service a programme or programme segment is offering and mixing the two, while inevitable in practice, will not be encouraged.

Something blunt needs to be said before closing.

This change is likely to be shocking for journalists/presenters who have built a career on a kind of anti-establishment. Everyone approves the interviewer who is seen to ask difficult questions but too often this has been a service to those who want to be outraged, who are antagonistic to politics itself, who are poorly informed, who prefer gossip, catch phrases, familiar story frames and an absence of complexity, maths or science. In future an anti-establishment service will have to mean insistence on higher standards of contribution.