the relationship between them is. It seems only yesterday that the press was


revelling in reporting the corruption involved in the MPs’ expenses scandal – indeed some of the more egregious wrongdoers are only now going to prison. Yet now the boot is on the other foot and MPs are lining up to exco- riate the press, expressing their horror and revulsion at the lengths to which journalists have been willing to go in the interests of get- ting an exclusive story even if it means the private details of those who have already suf- fered grievously are unscrupulously obtained, used and abused. The families of murdered children, dead soldiers, victims of the 7/7 ter- rorist attack and parents, like Gordon and Sarah Brown, of disabled children, are all considered fair game. Perhaps we are doomed to experience a cri- sis of trust every generation or so. Or has this crisis now reached epidemic proportions? It would be ironic if this were so as we have never before been able to scrutinise the work- ings of the institutions of our society more intensely. The watchwords of accountability and transparency are ever present. But it is these very qualities that are part of the prob- lem. As the philosopher Onora O’Neill (see page 6 of this issue), has previously commented: “Political, institutional and professional life may not go well if we constantly uproot them to demonstrate that everything is transparent and trustworthy.” So we need to avoid creating a society and culture that has unrealistic levels and standards of trust. We otherwise risk making the best the enemy of the good and deterring our young people from aiming to join any profession. Without raising expectations so high that no institution can reach the bar, it is increas- ingly hard to draw up a shortlist of those remaining institutions that still command respect. The armed forces, the monarchy – at least in the shape of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (though arguably they have joined the celebrity cult rather than the ranks of those held in esteem) – and the Queen herself, the courts – though the tolerance shown for the merciless cross-exami- nation of the father of Milly Dowler murdered by Levi Bellfield must give us pause. Perhaps those teaching in higher education


still draw some respect, though this may seem tough on teachers further down the education line. But too many school teachers have been terrorised out of their classrooms by feral youths in the state sector where, frequently, any sense of discipline is regarded as a breach of a child’s human rights and punishable accordingly. Then there are teachers who subscribe to a dated political agenda in which any formal teaching or structured curriculum is faintly suspect if it jars with the pupil’s views and wishes. The weakness in family structures and the disappearance of the sense of shared


A competitiveness of the Murdoch era places


exclusives obtained by any means ahead of honest, trustworthy reporting


responsibility between the teacher and the parent(s) for a child’s education are no doubt contributory factors to the diminishing of respect for the profession. This scenario can be taken as evidence that we all play a part in the decline of our insti- tutions. We have collectively created a culture where the most widely bought and read news- papers and magazines are those that carry the most prurient and salacious stories about those in the public eye, whether footballers, MPs, pop stars or winners of reality TV shows. It is not, after all, the Financial Times that has the widest circulation and, while only a minority of Tablet readers may know or care who Katie Price (the former model earlier known as Jordan) is, it is her latest autobio- graphical rendering that is in the bestselling nonfiction lists rather than Diarmaid MacCulloch’s History of Christianity. If people insisted only on buying newspa- pers that focused on how footballers performed on the field rather than elsewhere, or on what MPs said in Parliament rather than their extramarital affairs, we might enjoy the sort of press that exists, say, in France or Spain. Instead we have replaced trust – in this case, trusting the press to report and rep- resent accurately without smearing by innuendo or association, without going to the brink of libel, without falsehoods, error and the unreliable – with a competitiveness born in the Murdoch era that places so-called exclu- sives obtained by any means, legal or illegal, ahead of honest, trustworthy reporting. It might pain people in Britain to know how amazed and shocked most foreigners – at least the ones to whom I speak – are by the British tabloid press. They assume it is some kind of national aberration. But even they, seemingly inured to the excesses of the British media, will feel we have hit a new low because of the current crisis. This has wider implications. British politi- cians of every stripe waste no time in offering to instruct benighted for- eigners, whether it be those who have been oppressed by Communism or the would-be beneficiaries of the Arab Spring, of the benefits of our superior system of governance and our sans pareil


institutions. Might we not have a moratorium on our crusade to enlighten the natives when our own performance and that of our much vaunted institutions have so clearly fallen below any kind of par? Confucius famously told his disciples that three things are needed for government: weapons, food and trust. If you can’t hold on to all three, hold on to trust till the end. Not all parties at Westminster read their Confucius before the last election. Every political man- ifesto has consistently overpromised and underachieved. The 2010 examples may have set a new standard, which in turn has further eaten away at trust. How refreshing it would be if a party declined to publish manifestos and instead simply set out its core principles


16 July 2011 | THE TABLET | 5


and basic approach to governing. At least one political party at Westminster may wish it had taken that option. What is true of government is true of society.


Trust is the essential glue to hold our society together. In this we all have a role to play not just our institutions. “Base yourself in loyalty and trust.” Yes, Confucius again.


■Sir Ivor Roberts, a former British ambassador, is President of Trinity College, Oxford and editor of the new edition of the classic, Satow’s Diplomatic Practice.


The Talking Tablet


If you have difficulty in reading, or can no longer read, contact the Talking Newspaper Association of the UK for information about the regular edition on tape, or the etext version available by email, on our website.


Tel: 01435 866102 Fax: 01435 865422 Email: info@tnauk.org.uk www.tnauk.org.uk


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36