Precious, fragile, easily squandered. Is there any hope for trust?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/31/trust-british-public-scandals

Version 0 of 1.

We’ve suffered a cascade of “scandals”; from the financial crisis of 2008, to the parliamentary expenses catastrophe, press misdeeds and police malpractice. Never far away, deep anxiety about business ethics. Little wonder the public find themselves reeling from mistrust of the entire system.

You would have hoped that any observer of these events might have taken note of the enormous premium the public place on trust and authenticity. Some hope.

It’s now almost two and half years since the Leveson report on press regulation was published. It’s 18 months since the subsequent royal charter was established. Yet, for the victims of press intrusion it must seem like several lifetimes, for no progress of consequence, certainly nothing that would signal a change in our culture or compassion is in any way evident.

A body with no meaningful credibility, Ipso, has been established – which several newspapers have refused to recognise because, to anyone with a serious interest in change, it comes across as little more than business as usual dressed in gingham. It is in no sense compliant with recommendations made in the Leveson report, let alone the royal charter criteria.

The situation would be farcical – except, as we know, for the parents of Milly Dowler, for the McCanns, for Chris Jeffries and many, many other victims, it is far more serious than that. To any informed observer, the lack of meaningful progress since Lord Justice Leveson published his report ought to be a matter of national and judicial shame. By far the finest moments of David Cameron’s premiership were his brilliantly delivered apologies over Bloody Sunday and Hillsborough. But, given a golden opportunity to rack up a hat-trick, he bottled it. He wasn’t faced down by the army over Bloody Sunday, he wasn’t faced down by the police over Hillsborough, but he was faced down by the press barons.

Little wonder that last week’s report from the Lords communications committee was so scathing. It concluded that the system for the regulation of the press is now even more complex than it was before Leveson began his inquiry. Not only does this raise important constitutional considerations, but it renders impossible the development of an environment within which trust in the newspaper industry can ever be rebuilt. In the meantime, digital news sites like Buzzfeed, the Huffington Post and Vice remain unregulated, completely beyond the reach of Ofcom.

This matters. For no business – least of all the media business – exists independently of the rest of society. To use an analogy I first drew more than 20 years ago, many people exist in a kind of moral airlock. During the few steps across the corporate lobby they cease to be the person they were in the street or at home and become – by stealthy transfiguration – the loyal corporate being. They leave behind one kind of integrity – their private preferences of family, friends, stability, continuity – and for the portion of their lives spent in this corporate environment, find themselves reluctantly embracing another kind of imposed integrity, the integrity of the bottom line.

Trust erodes. And yet trust is central.

Interestingly, trust in the BBC has continued to rise over the past decade – despite the horrors of Jimmy Savile and other, more avoidable scandals. Support for the licence fee has risen too.

Yet both the BBC and Channel 4, the other public service broadcaster, continue to face huge challenges from some political zealots – noticeably, but not exclusively, from those on the right. This was apparent from much of what was said about the corporation in the culture select committee report published last month. The BBC, the committee said: “Has tried for too long to provide ‘something for everyone’: it should reduce provision in areas where others are better placed to deliver excellence and better value for money, and make bigger, braver decisions on its strategy.” To which I say simply – rubbish! The universality of the BBC is one of the things we should value most about the corporation; reflecting as it does the plurality of our increasingly diverse society, it helps to bind it together simply because it does have such extraordinary reach.

As the BBC itself puts it, the next government has a stark choice when it comes to charter review. “Creating a BBC reduced in impact and reach in a world of global giants. Or maintaining and even strengthening a vibrant BBC which helps to bind the country together at home, and champions it abroad. A universal service for a universal fee.”

Channel 4, meanwhile, is continually threatened by the spectre of privatisation. But the notion that a privatised Channel 4 would continue to invest significant sums in news and current affairs or make equity investments in British feature films, or try out more programme ideas each year than any other channel, is utterly illusory. Channel 4 has more than 11 million registered, loyal, and trusting viewers. Any government that wishes to endanger Channel 4’s future risks alienating a very large number of current and soon-to-be voters.

Politicians, film-makers, journalists, even bloggers – trust and integrity are issues for us all, for our notion of individual freedom, and its partner, creative freedom, is comparatively new in the history of western ideas, and is often undervalued. It’s a prize easily lost. Once surrendered, it could prove extremely hard to reclaim.