Will the Media Learn and change?

Decisions need to be made by the best people at the time needed to create clarity of direction. The political narrative always has to then find fault with the imperfections of decision making but life events can only be run in one direction as our future selves are always different (δ?? ?? τ?ν α?τ?ν ποταμ?ν ο?κ ?ν ?μβα?η? Heraclitus - Plato, Cratylus, 402a). It does not mean that decisions should not be rightly challenged and scrutinised, the role of Government opposition and the Third Estate. Evidence shows political decisions, often driven by dogma, have had disastrous consequences and need careful investigative scrutiny. But is now the right time for the constant barrage of dogma and hyperbole driven criticism? Peer or judicial review and criticism have their place in science, law, and the arts. As the people who do science, law, medicine, and art of all kinds also know that the work comes first, review, criticism and learning second; this is how law, science, medicine and the arts move forward - through hard work, where experiments often fail but create new avenues of discovery. So, have the media over-stepped the mark in their criticism of Government and the scientific and medical advisors they rely upon? Is their need to fill airtime, with so little other news, a valid excuse for the media to behave in the way they are doing? Everything has changed in the world but the media continue in their normal ways.

What is clear about the current situation is that the ‘political narrative’ too easily takes over from the rational narrative. What is also clear to everyone in the world is that the current situation is unprecedented, with highly uncertain and highly unpredictable outcomes: a 100 year event, which many predicted but few planned in detail for (except for a few countries which had previously experienced recent epidemics). The question must then be: how much is a society prepared to invest in the extremes of possible outcomes? Should the UK Government plan for Tsunamis because some people say they are possible? Or, is risk management and mitigation at the heart of the political narrative, where we spend our money, which is why it seems so open to criticism by the media. 

What ever political leaders do it appears to come under criticism. How often have you ever heard the phrase “The decision makers are doing a wonderful job?” coming from the mouths of opposing dogmatic tribes or journalists. The preferred narrative always presents as the ‘hero’ or ‘villain’ narrative so popular in Hollywood! Most often we hear political commentators, who are out of their depth in the subject matter, using a personalised narrative to point out how decision makers (“Villains”) failed their ‘source’ (“Heroes”). They pick at the open scrabs, the most challenging decisions, without always looking carefully enough at all the evidence which was presented: a feeding frenzy begins with each journalist trying to find the new question for the same issue. Maybe journalists should study the methods of the scientists and medics and do what is expected of them: look at things in the round, eliminate any personal biases, find ‘institutional’ issues which can be fixed, and make suggestions on how to improve. Clearly the method they prefer is to personalise issues and to disproportionately focus upon the decision makers, which betrays their bias. When have you ever heard the media make constructive suggestions on how to improve the issue they have observed?

Of course the media are looking for the narrative, the drama, the story, the conspiracy, because it is what has traditionally appealed and played to their audience. I wonder if their audience may have different needs right now, in this strange new world: a need for reassurance, certainty and trust in decision makers, and hope for the future. For me, at least, the hyperbole drenched, personal narrative driven, backward looking language of journalists plays badly alongside the clarity of thought, forward looking, action orientated language of specialists who openly speak of what they do not know. But there is hope. In placing scientists and medics front and centre, they will not shy away from stating clearly how decisions were reached. The media need to learn to be cautious in challenging scientists and medics, they have amazing memories for facts and will state them clearly without personalisation!

What has been wonderful, and long over due, has been the re-emergence of trust in our leaders, as they appear to have again found truth in rational decision making and realised that true leadership is knowing when you need to listen to others and not be led by dogma. The scientists, medics and now politicians have made clear that they are using the scientific method. The brightest and greatest minds have been brought together, they have grouped into their various specialties, and begun their processes; carefully they reviewed the evidence, formed collectives to argue and debate so that decisions can be, and finally they have published the outcomes. Publication being currently in two forms: to politicians who rightly need to make their timely decisions, after all it is their decision to make; then to the peer review process, a communication and dialogue within their relevant communities. With decisions having being made we all move forward together. The constant reviewing of evidence, with appropriate changes suggested when the evidence is clear. Science is not a political dogma, it does change based upon evidence and even on occasion U-Turns (Read T.S. Kuhn - The structure of scientific revolutions.), albeit it slowly!

Scientists and medics are also human beings, with the same emotions as everyone else, so those that feel passed over may let their ego take over, from time to time, and then take to the TV to disagree. Science, unlike politics, welcomes dissenting voices because it has established processes which allows everyone a voice. Some scientists and medics, however, have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the established mechanisms of peer review and moved into the political narrative, presumably to meet some other personal needs. Some common themes here too, the ‘I was always right but ignored brigade,’ to name but one.

So let’s take one simple decision, made on and around the 8th March, and understand the narratives. It was decided and stated that the Liverpool v Atlético Madrid game could go ahead (11th March), as should the Cheltenham Festival (16th- 19th March). The scientist and medics shared their evidence, having talked to experts, and the Government gave their advice. Everyone in our liberal democracy was given the choice, there are hazards but it is for citizens to choose - the normal continuance of life over your health. I know what decision I would made but I am not a football supporter with tickets to arguably one of the most important games of the season for Liverpool F.C. nor am I a Racing aficionado! The events occur, the world moves on, and in mid April a political narrative appears that the Government made ‘late decisions’ which cost lives: driven by an Insight Team article in The Times.

What was the evidence at the time. On the 8th March there were 69 confirmed cases in the UK, 149 in Spain, and Italy was at the time the focus of attention with 1492 cases and clear evidence of an epidemic based around Milan. On March 9th the Government of Italy imposed a National quarantine, restricting the movement of the population. WHO only declared a global pandemic on the 11th March, which was the first change by WHO since the 30th January, when a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) was declared. 31st January was the first confirmed case in the UK. At this point no economic measures had been communicated which would have allowed a safe slow down of the economy. Rishi Sunak announced measures, unprecedented state intervention which essentially expanded state control of many new areas, on the 17th March. 

As memory fades things change but the decision seemed right and measured, given the evidence. With hindsight, a political mindset, and a media needing stories a different narrative can easily be assembled: Villains to blame for the death of loved ones in Liverpool. But how many actually came from Madrid, who have supporters around the world? What was the percentage of supporters from Madrid, compared to expected crowd? Answers to these questions and many others are needed to understand the disease spread in Liverpool. Will any answers to any questions change the outcomes?

Decision making in all walks of life is difficult, which is why leaders with effective capabilities are highly prized. Leaders have to consult, looking at the risks and benefits of different options they have to take a ‘high level view’, then decide, and then inform everyone of their decisions. Once informed, in a liberal democracy which values individual choice and freedom, citizens have to make their own decisions and act accordingly. Decisions with high levels of uncertainty, which are needed to be taken at speed, can never be perfect and neither can they cover every eventuality. Could the decision makers have predicted, with the evidence in hand, the expansion of the disease so rapidly and devastatingly in Spain and hence known the impact for a relatively small number of football supporters traveling from Madrid might have had? 

What appears to be at the heart of the differing narratives are the differing streams of thought between the general and the specific (read anything by Wittgenstein (Philosophy) or A.N. Whitehead (Science)). Science and medicine has to generalise from the specific to look for hypothesis to test. Evidence can then be generated in the appropriate studies to test the general hypothesis, based upon pre-determined questions with appropriate statistical analysis plans. Once the full results are revealed then experts can formulate the benefits and risks to the ‘general’ population and suggest appropriate actions. When statistical significance is gained there will be an observed population benefit, which will also mean that some individuals will get no benefit. These decision making processes are rational and do not carry the emotions of an individual narrative. The media come at narratives from the other end, the specific, the personal and human story with all the highly charged emotions attached. Often they collect evidence to support their own hypothesis and prejudice, and so may ignore evidence that could refute their claims. They only talk of the individual case, their stories of legitimate fears and concerns which are rational and to be expected in these extraordinary times of uncertainty. David Goodhart described these difference narrative approaches wonderfully well today in The Times with the phrase “Too much communication has become performative rather than informative.” (Pass the remote, there's too much emotion in the news)

As the T.S Eliot lines that start this piece state clearly ‘we loose much knowledge in information’; In the performative antics of the Media much is lost. The informative approach of scientists and medics may be boring but appears to be trusted. In a recent discussion with a friend they summed up their rational approach to the daily briefings “I turn the TV off when the questions start.” As the scientists and medics have stated many times they are constantly updating their advice based upon new evidence. Does the the media now have enough evidence to change? There have certainly been improvements by the politicians since Brexit, which inspired the following poem.

IN FREEDOM RELEASE TRUTH

With our freedoms come responsibilities,

Ones held dearly by many, however we speak;

Yet in holding too tight to our fears and hate

We can easily transcend toward unknown harm;

And in that journey, towards those we would not be,

Lies harm and yet all of our hope of seeing truthfully.

No political politeness, and jostling, leads

Unless it comes from a deep place of respect;

When a coming together of ideas, in shared action,

Moves us forward we all gain in the joy-filled act;

Yet when all respect is lost, in ideologies inadequacy,

There is a greater harm, a hopelessness without truth.

So take these freedoms, fraught with passion,

And accept with humility and humanity all who speak;

Take their words and lives and weigh up their needs,

Which transcend the selfishness of ideologies dogma,

And within your heart find their loving heart which is

The motive for all passion: love being our shared truth.

Then in your actions take courage, live in truth.

In that moment, seeing beyond your own needs be

Forever faithful to the ones with full belief in freedom.

Seize the moment and with our shared loving truth

Make this time, in our destiny, a moment when we say:

In love find each other’s truth: then we are again free.

Scanlon. D (2020) Timeless Truths. The Foolish Poet Press, Wilmslow, England. IN FREEDOM RELEASE TRUTH. Page Number (In final stages)

The use of the Quote by T.S.Eliot is used under “Fair Use” or “Fair Dealing” or “Free Use.” The publisher is drawing on principle 5 of the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Poetry. Aufderheide et al (2011) with regards epigraphs and short quotes, which states the following principle: Under fair use, an author may use brief quotations of poetry to introduce chapters and sections of a prose work or long poem, so long as there is a clearly demonstrated relationship between the quotation and the content of the section in question.