Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Ozymandis and the hacking scandal

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip an
d sneer of cold command

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".

[Ozymandias – Percy Bysshe Shelley]

In the bars and restaurants of central London the hacking scandal dominates conversation. For the politically-minded there is only one subject worth tweeting about; and like all good soap operas, the drama is the more compelling for not knowing how the story will end. For me there are three distinct issues that emerge. But first, let’s remind ourselves of how we got to where we are.

Journalism, especially as practiced amongst the more populist titles, has never been for the faint-hearted. The profession didn’t earn its poor reputation overnight, but through a steady investment in dubious behaviour over many decades. From George Gissing to the present day, the journalist of popular culture has rarely been viewed as a paragon of virtue. The same goes for politicians. And so for the chattering classes to suddenly wake up to the imperfect relationship between the two is, to say the least, a bit rich. The fact is that this is unraveling for two reasons: the end of deference with the concomitant decline in trust, and the rise in transparency brought about by the explosion in electronic communications. Now there is nowhere to hide. We live in an age of fewer secrets, where all behaviours are subject to scrutiny. So what are the three issues that emerge from this?

The first is a reality check. For the vast majority of people this ‘scandal’ is of little interest. Outside the bubble of the great chatteratti, few people particularly care. They never held either journalists or politicians in high regard and so these latest shenanigans merely reinforce long-held prejudices. For them, what matters is their family, their economic position, and their immediate livelihood. This story serves to highlight the gap between the political class and the ordinary citizens (perhaps it is no surprise that so many have effectively opted out of the franchise).

The second is a more profound point. For those of us who have grown up believing that the cosy relationship between the media and the political class was how things were ordained, here is the wake-up call that life doesn’t actually have to be like this. The established hegemony only existed because we allowed it to, perhaps through supine fear, or because we felt it served our interests. But it is hugely important to remember what we always knew: that nothing lasts forever. Change is constant; things can improve; the current will give way to the future; the established order will be replaced. These are the lessons of history. With our new found confidence, and with the tools of electronic media, we can, like the citizens of the Middle East, say out loud that we think that society, as it is now constituted, is broken. Over-consumption and irrelevant consumption, together with poor values, has led us into a cul-de-sac. The pie throwing incident showed clearly that the emperor has no clothes. This should give us confidence to see things differently and to embrace change.

Thirdly, I sat back and tried guess which institution would be next to face the harsh reality of scrutiny under the spotlight of transparency. I have a feeling that it will be large corporations. Not because they harbour illegal activities, but because they are repositories of behaviours and attitudes that are increasingly questionable. There are fewer checks and balances on the actions of senior executives. The inter-connectedness between executives and non-executives is, to say the least, surprisingly incestuous; and the variance in pay and reward between senior executives and ordinary workers is of increasing concern. Annual meetings are a farce. The institutional investors are often absent, leaving the small, ordinary and utterly impotent shareholder to attempt to hold management to account. However, it may not be the outside world that starts to be more questioning of senior corporate management. The employees themselves have the social media tools and they are the ones that no longer automatically trust their seniors out of deference. They will increasingly start to want to refashion their organisations. Working practices need to become more relevant. Command and control management styles and hierarchies need to be replaced with collaborative models. And status and reward needs to be more equitable. After all, employees are becoming increasingly aware, like the traveller from an antique land, that nothing lasts for ever.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Rogue reporters and how to fix society

The furore over phone hacking in UK has produced much righteous indignation, much of it from journalists. Watching some of them pontificate with faux anger reminded me of Captain Renault as he closed down Rick’s bar in Casablanca: “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.” The truth, as one wag put it, is that it’s 95% of journalists who give the profession a bad name. Borrowing photographs from the mantelpieces of the deceased, misrepresenting, entrapment (including recently of a politician by reporters posing as constituents) are just of some the ruses employed by many journalists on publications and media outlets across the board. To blame one tabloid at the expense of the profession as a whole is to miss the point.

Some say that this is a watershed moment for the profession; that it is to journalists what the expenses scandal was to MPs. In truth, the general public were no more shocked to hear of the nefarious practices of some journalists than they were to find that some MPs were playing the system to feather their own nests. Such is the poor reputation of these two “professions”. The question now is what to do about it. For some it is about regulation. Clearly self-regulation (to which some media outlets have opted out anyway) is struggling with the reality of not wanting to point fingers for fear of having them pointed back. In any case, quis custodiet ipsos custodes, as they used to say in the forum. But surely a free press is the price that a healthy and robust democracy has to pay for being healthy and robust? After all, do we really want to be in a society where the establishment connives in covering up, for instance, the predatory behaviour of a senior politician?

Those who have worked in the pressure-cooker environment of a tabloid newspaper speak of the sole focus as that of getting the exclusive story. Nothing else seems to matter. But only in highly regimented command and control environments, such as the military, do rules and regulations dictate behaviour. Journalism is under real pressure from many angles. There are no longer any significant barriers to entry. Training budgets are being slashed, and the business model is having to re-invent itself in the face of disruptive technology and with competition now coming in all shapes and sizes. All this means that regulation is never likely to be the answer and would be unlikely to change behaviours.

So what is going to happen? The sheer complexity of the situation seems overwhelming. But the truth is that you tend to get the media that you deserve. To blame them for being salacious is to ignore our own prurient attitudes. It may sound naïve, but the solution lies within ourselves. It is we who need to reset our values. It is we who need to be reminded of what is and what isn’t really important. This may sound horribly naïve, but sustainable change really does come from within. If we are not happy with how society and its institutions have turned out then we have to change them through our own behaviour. Small actions do lead to big changes. And that change starts at home. As Ghandi said: “Be the change you want to see.”