There is frequent discussion of a decline in trust in Parliament. According to Eurobarometer data from earlier this year, 27 per cent of the population trust Parliament. This compares with 34 per cent six months before. In some countries, such as Denmark, more than 70 per cent of those questioned trust Parliament.
There may thus be seen to be a problem as far as Parliament is concerned. However, what is frequently overlooked is that levels of trust in the press are even lower. The Eurobarometer data for the UK (based on a survey in April) found that only 19 per cent of those questioned trusted the press. The figure was 2 per cent lower than six months previously. Not only is the figure low, it is the lowest in the European Union. The average for the 27 member states is 44 per cent. In some states, more than 60 per cent of those questioned trust the press.
Two questions arise. First, why the low level of trust? Is it a product of poor reporting? Much political reporting is opinion based and often lacks rigour: there is a tendency to rely on unattributable sources and to generalise from an N of one or two. There is also a tendency for the media to hunt as a pack. Once a line is taken by one ‘paper, others tend to follow. Second, what can be done about it? How can the quality be improved in order to raise levels of trust? This is premised on the assumption that trust needs to be restored given that a free and vigorous press is an integral part of a healthy democracy. Legislation, in my view, is not the answer. In practice, it is difficult, if not impossible, to legislate for a responsible, or high quality, press. In principle, it is objectionable, since state constraints undermine the whole concept of a free press. There needs to be some balance (hence the libel laws) but constraints need to be limited.
I see no “Crisis of confidence” in the press. None of us are forced to buy papers. When we do, we buy which ever paper may hold the words we want to read. Some, favour certain politics and that, more often than not is the deciding factor, on which paper we end up buying.
There is a great, a very great difference between TRUST in our Government and/or Parliament and the press. Whether a paper survives or not depends on how many papers it sells. Perhaps the people would very much like to believe what their chosen papers write but most people are not stupid enough to believe ALL they write, or in fact believe all that they might read.
Some papers may be -guided-(to put it politely) by politics and who writes in them, even local papers are suspect to political pressure or perhaps who the Editor is or what political persuasion the Editor or perhaps owner might have.
I write one letter per week to my local rag, but for many months now, no letter of mine has been printed. WHY? To test this theory out, I wrote a letter in my maiden name and from my son’s address where I happened to by staying for a few days. It was of course printed.
Trust in our Government/Parliament is completely different, because when a Government has lost the people’s trust, they would be better to bring forward an election or stand down. Sadly, such is the REAL lack of trust, their is no distinction between the two major Parties. Only the LibDems have made clear their views on the EU, and though they are not mine and I would never vote for them, I admire them for their honesty.
To me, there is no point in changing Labour for the Conservatives because most things would remain the same.
We can change our Paper any time, I wish we could do the same with our Government, but then I come back to the question once more, why are we paying our present Government to govern when the European Union instigates most of our laws and what is more, if we do not carry them out to the EU’s satisfaction, we (THE TAX PAYER)get fined very heavily AGAIN. I think you will eventually find many more people will ‘cotton on’ to the fact that we no longer need the Houses of Commons filling with members that have chosen to give most of the governing of this Country away to foreigners. That is something the papers can never do.
Anne Palmer: You appear to treat trust in the press and trust in Parliament (and Government) as unrelated. It is correct that people tend to buy papers that reflect their political views (though there are also some high levels of misinterpretation by readers of the political leanings of the ‘paper they read) but poor reporting and a cynical approach to politicians can be independent of the political stance of the paper and influence or reinforce readers’ attitudes towards Parliament and Government.
It’s interesting that Ms Palmer sees no significant problem with the press while repeating one of the right wing rumour-merchants’ favourite Outrage! shibboleths about Britain’s involvement with the EU. European democracy may not be perfect and does not come with a free golden unicorn for every voter, but is certainly at least more complex than Parliament “giving away governance to foreigners”. Of course, newspapers know that it’s a lot easier to tell people a simple lie than a complex truth.
Lord Norton, you say that you do not see a legislative solution to the problems facing the press or the government (and I agree that the two are interrelated), although you do believe that the libel laws help. What do you feel a possible solution would be, and where should we draw the boundaries around which constraints are “philosophically objectionable” and which are not?
With the greatest respect Lord Norton, You headline was, A crisis of confidence in the Press? To me there isn’t one because we all can choose which paper we want to buy, or none at all if we have lost trust in all of them. Without the people buying them, some may go out of business as some have in the past, or, as in some cases, they get it wrong, be challenged through the Courts.
To McDuff, methinks you presume too much! I see absolutely no democracy in the European Union, especially when I read some of the debates in that Parliament. I do my own research from debates in our Parliament as well as the EU Parliament so I have no need to take any notice of any “Right” or “Left” wing shibboleths about Britain’s involvement with the EU. Because I do indeed keep up with events in both Parliaments is probably why I have lost trust in Politicians especially as I read the antics that took place in both our Houses at the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and who voted FOR and AGAINST it.
I do however, want a free Britain, working with other Countries but never being permanently governed by them, and for our own politicians to instigate ALL our own laws which have been designs especially for our Country. For our Fishermen/women to be in control of our own fishing grounds, and a Government in Office that will never ever give control over our remaining Seas and Oceans to the EU for their Motorway in the Seas. AH McDuff, I do not even belong to any Left or Right wing shibboleth whoever they might be.
Anne Palmer: We also choose which parties to vote for. We are not required to vote. If we don’t support them, they atrophy, with consequent implications for the political process.
McDuff: You raise an excellent question to which I plan to reply in some detail. It is one I have been wrestling with.
Anne Palmer, please just stop posting! You have absolutely no credibility on this site when you relate EVERY SINGLE article back to the EU when most of the blogs have nothing to do with the Union at all.
It’s just an extremely poor attempt at peddling your own agenda!
If you don’t mind a little educated guesswork: I suspect the reasons behind this lack of confidence are part of a cycle.
Radio and TV both took a chunk out of newspaper sales — check the number of different newspapers on sale in the early 1900s compared with today — but nothing has ever done so much damage as the Web.
The founder of Netscape put it bluntly:
According to an article in Press Gazette, newspaper sales are universally dropping due to the Web.
Based on this premise, we see the newspapers need to increase sales; aside from dropping their price, the best way to do this is sensationalism. Or, as Rupert Murdoch puts it, to get a ‘scoop’. Sensationalism may help to sell ‘papers in the short-term, but promotes bad journalism (or a perception of it) in the medium- to long-term.
Something this study seems to omit: how many people said they don’t trust newspapers simply because they don’t read any? And how many of those people then read the ‘papers online? The survey seems flawed without this information.
So, to answer your questions, Lord Norton:
Newspapers are becoming less relevant due to the ubiquity of information and news on the Web. This causes some newspapers to revert to sensationalism and catering to the lowest-common-denominator.
So, a low level of trust is a product of poor sales leading to poor reporting.
The Lords are doing the right thing already by communicating directly with people. Why would anyone bother reading a ‘paper when they can come and talk to people directly on their blogs? Why bother reading a ‘paper when all the news anyone needs is at: http://news.bbc.co.uk ? Why bother reading a ‘paper when any interesting articles will appear on aggregator sites like reddit.com or Slashdot anyway?
Conclusion: those ‘papers that sucessfully make the transition to the Web will survive. Those that don’t will die. Parliament may avoid a decline in trust, due to this, by using the Web (plus TV and radio) as their primary means of communication with the public. Accept the fact that old media is dying and adapt accordingly.
Postscript: this is a good blog entry. I submitted it to reddit, and it has generated some interest. 🙂
Oh Brom, how delightful of you to get the message at last, because every single article does relate back to the EU. Perhaps for the first time you have recognised that fact.
All you have to do Brom, when you see my name (and by the way, I always use my full name on this ‘blog’) is skip the section I have written and go on to the next.
The question was about TRUST or lack of it, now where does “credibility” or lack of it lie?
I have to admit Dear Brom, I had no idea this was YOUR Blog for you to request me to stop posting on. Fancy you using the name “Lord Norton” in your heading?
Liam: Thanks both for an extremely interesting response and also for submitting it to reddit: the traffic we have received as a consequence has made this particular blog entry one of the most read, if not the most read, since Lords of the Blog was introduced.
I take the points you make. There is competition with the Web, though it begs the question as to what is the nature of the competition. What is the web offering that newspapers cannot offer? Is it the message or the medium, or both? Does the Internet result in a dumbing down of news, emphasising the quick data-bite at the expense of serious reporting? Is the Internet winning because of its interactive capacity and its immediacy?
There is some way to go, incidentally, before people trust the Internet. It elicits low levels of trust within EU member states. People trust television and radio more than they trust the press and the Internet. (According to the Eurobarometer data, levels of trust in TV and radio in the UK are close to the EU average.) The sources, of course, are not mutually exclusive. The BBC has a strong Internet presence.
In terms of what should be done, I take your point about direct communication, and engagement, between Parliament and people. This is increasingly being recognised. Parliament can reach people directly – and ideally people should be able to reach Parliament directly – without the mediation of newspaper editors. That is why more resources are being directed towards facilitating such engagement, though – as I have indicated in earlier posts – I think there is still much more we need to do. This Blog, as you indicate, is a modest step in that direction and the comments received in response to earlier posts have embodied valuable advice as to how we may take this forward.
Given that, should we worry about a lack of trust in the media and the decline in newspaper sales? Will there still be scope for serious investigative journalism? Or should we leave that to broadcast media and bloggers? In which case, should there be (could there be) the equivalent of the Press Complaints Commission to cover blogging?
I’m a journalist, so some of what I’m about to say will be biased.
But: we should worry about a lack of trust and the decline in newspaper sales.
It’s true to say it’s a vicious cycle; sales drop, costs are cut, quality of journalism suffers, people trust us less, sales drop and so on.
If we can’t find a way to fund really good quality journalism then people like Liam will find that his aggregator sites won’t have any articles on them, because the people that produce them will all be out of a job.
Partly it is about medium – as I and many other people have blogged before, today’s teens and 20-somethings don’t read newspapers, or watch tv news, unless they’re linked in to a specific story by a friend, or a really big issue. They don’t need to seek out news because it’s all around them.
I believe investigative journalism is important. But I’m not sure anyone has yet come up with a business model that can fund news in the long term. And then what happens? The BBC’s content will be all that’s left and I don’t think anyone could argue that a single broadcaster would be good for us as a democracy…
Lord Norton – is it possible that peoples level of trust in medium is related to how it is regulated?
For example, the (qasai-stautory?) Ofcom regulates TV, while newspapers are self-regulating, through the Press Complaints Commission.
I’m not actually in favor of grater regulation, but this thought just struck me…
Ms Palmer:
I fail to see how you could not see any democracy in the EU unless you falsely equate “not democratic” with “democratically elected representatives doing things I don’t personally like.” It’s a common error, but still an error. The European Council and European Parliament are both beholden to the electorate in one way or other. Overemphasis on the actions of the Commission because it is “unelected” is like talking about, say, the Lords and the Bank of England and then claiming that Britain is not democratic. It is, but democracy is not myth nor magic – it’s just the least-worst system of government we currently have available. Personally, I am not a democracy fetishist, nor a sovereignty fetishist, and if handing over aspects of management to higher-level authorities can produce more favourable results (for example, allowing the ECHR to reign in the authoritarian excesses of our government) then I see no reason to cut off our nose to spite our face.
Besides, where I grew up in the north is closer to Brussels than it is to London – which from a long historical perspective removed the sovereignty of the region long ago. Why should I credit one set of foreigners with having my interests at heart over another? 😉
Also, a “shibboleth” is not something you can belong to, it is a verbal marker of a group to which you belong. Perhaps you would be more comfortable if I said that you walk like a duck and quack like a duck, so without evidence to the contrary, I’m going to say you’re a duck.
Now, distractions aside:
“The internet” is a medium, not a message, and this cannot be stressed enough. Traditional news-gathering organisations do not have to die out if they can be flexible. As people move their reading habits increasingly from the printed page to the LCD screen (or, in coming years, to the E-Paper screen) then the magic of the market will ensure that companies which provide content in the formats that people want to read, watch or listen to it will find ways of making money out of it, and those who do not will atrophy and fall by the wayside.
There are, obviously, problems which will arise as the move occurs, but there are always problems with the news media, and the internet’s are not different in kind but in scale. One of the advantages of the internet is that it allows for fracturing and aggregation, so that people do not have to buy columns by Melanie Phillips if all they want is to find out who won the Bolton-Liverpool match (for example). To a certain extent this reduces the influence that a partisan editorial slant can have on a casual reader. On the other hand, the same process can increase the “bubble” in which a given reader can find themselves, with certain news stories never making it through the filters.
Sam Shepard worries about funding, I think we’ll see a transition of the old monoliths from print to online presences, and a flourishing of smaller online-only or small-run print magazines with large online presences, like the Washington Monthly and Talking Points Memo in the USA. While costs aren’t totally absent online, there is room for low-cost but still high-quality reporting. The cost of text online is minimal, while the cost of a tonne of “yesterday’s fishwrap” is not negligible. Different pricing structures will be required, no doubt, but workable models will definitely emerge.
Incidentally, while I approve very much of increased government transparency, I find it hard to agree with Liam that such things make a fourth estate superfluous. It will always be necessary to have third parties to comb through and analyse the vast swathes of data for a time- and expertise-poor reading public, not to mention the very real possibility of having governments lie to us. However, I do find his theory of a low sales > low reporting > lower sales death spiral to be fairly compelling, at least worthy of further consideration and research.
The Guardian has shown that it is possible for the print world to move in to the online world successfully. They realised the value of the new medium and instead of trying to replicate their print on a web page, they developed a slightly different approach which works a lot better. They also hired a number of established web-log writers to write for them, using the existing talent within the new medium to develop their own content.
As the rest of the industry catches up, and starts innovating, with the online leaders such as the Guardian and BBC News Online, I think we will see a return to higher quality reporting. There is still, and always will be, a place for third-party editorial analysis of the many, many news-worthy happenings around the world but the way in which it is presented is not a simple case of changing the medium, the way in which the information is edited and presented has to change too.
Whilst government overly controls the agenda in both houses of Parliament there will be no debate of essential matters to the satisfaction of politicians, peers or the media.
Parliament therefore appears to have become the plaything of government and the needs of the electorate have been ignored except when they coincide or reinforce the agenda of government. This is a dangerous departure especially when time slots exist for such debate.
It is simply good politics for Parliament to be seen at all times to be discussing national matters in a non-partisan way; to be otherwise undermines trust by giving the impression that politicians don’t care. This is not true, they do care but procedure undermines what they could achieve.
Senex: I take your point, though there is an essential difference between the two Houses. Though the Government largely shapes the agenda in the House of Lords, the timetable is not formally in its gift and can be over-ridden by the House. There are various mechanisms available to peers to raise issues. The problem is that the partisan discussion in the Commons does get covered by the mnedia; the less partisan debate in the Lords does not, in large part because of the very fact that it is not so adversarial. It does not make for good copy if one is concentrating on the headlines.