A couple of weeks ago an apparently normal thing happened in London. The leader of the Anglican Church, Archbishop Rowan Williams, gave a public lecture on Civil and Religious Law in England. It was long, dense and scholarly. In it he discussed the possibility that some aspects of Sharia Law, as well as specifically Christian and Jewish laws, might one day apply, in very limited ways, in Britain. He entertained the idea that in the area of family law, for example, those families who genuinely wanted to might be able to resolve matters according to Islamic principles. '
A perfect storm broke around him. Within 48 hours two 'page three girls' from The Sun were camped outside his official residence with balloons and a specially painted bus, inviting passers-by to sign a petition for him to resign.
The Sun published several stories. The one I saw featured a picture of a London bus blown up by a suicide bomber in 2005, and was accompanied by references to 'stoning, amputations, lashings and executions', with pictures. It claimed, 'In an explosive outburst, Dr Rowan Williams said there should be one set of rules for Muslims – and another for everyone else'. That is a travesty of what he said. But after three days, the story was not about what he actually said, but about the response to what people were told he said. Politicians, members of the public and even some of his colleagues are giving him a hard time.
I enjoy a little rough-and-tumble in public debate, and anyone aspiring to be a public figure needs to be up for it. And I am very grateful that I live in a country where important people can be criticised, even ridiculed. But I am not enjoying this spectacle. There is something seriously wrong here.
Dr Williams is accused of weak judgement in not realizing that what he said would be twisted beyond all recognition and sensationalized. Probably this is true. But for how long should we accept this state of affairs? We need free and vigorous newspapers and broadcasters. But it must be dangerous when most of us rely for our information on media that do not tell us the truth.
I am reminded of a book I read some time ago called The Rise of Political Lying, by Peter Oborne. He claims that politicians, too, do not always resist the temptation to lie to us. And I rather like one of his ideas for dealing with it.
When British politicians make economic pronouncements, there is a small but respected body of economists, with the rather dry name of The Institute of Fiscal Studies, which studies them, and can call their bluff. The Institute is often quoted as a way of either puncturing or upholding their assertions. It is not a perfect safeguard, but it makes it harder to lie to the public about the economy.
Oborne suggests that their remit should be extended to cover any political lying. Should there not be a similarly respected group of independent media professionals whose task is to support journalists and broadcasters when they do not lie to the public, and prick the balloons of those who do?
英語