6 O'Clock News or Twitter?

Remember the days when the family sat around on Saturday morning (or Sunday afternoon) reading the newspapers? It was soooo irritating when Mum kept commenting out loud and Dad pontificated on an article he'd just read on something you really didn't care about. It was those family sessions with the weekend newspapers that gave me a lifelong interest in current affairs, politics and world issues. And it was evenings spent arguing with the speakers on Any Questions (the radio precursor to Question Time) that taught me not only to debate but to look outwards and try to learn about life from other peoples' points of view and from situations different from my own.

So, I ask, what's different about doing your news-gathering on social media and, in my case, especially Twitter? There are pros and cons.

+ves

• it's more interactive.
• there's a wider range of subjects and opinions readily available.
• conversation is wider than just family & immediate friends.
• it's occasionally prompted me to write articles/join campaigns that have demonstrably made a difference.
• it's more democratic: anyone from anywhere in the world can contribute, they don't need to hold a recognised 'position' - MP, Pope, celebrity....
• the information you see is not controlled by one group such as journalists.
• I read news articles alongside articles on philosophy, science, arts, ethics, religion (no sport!) and professional development in my own field everyday so the cross-fertilisation of ideas is greater.
• it's easier to drink coffee and eat toast while looking at a screen than when holding a newspaper.

-ves

• it can be more difficult to distinguish between well-researched material and superficial, misleading or downright inaccurate information.
• judgements about quality are down to you alone and not necessarily mediated through recognized publications with guaranteed standards.
• what you see on screen is controlled by your previous choices and it's easy not to venture outside sites that are presented to you and make you feel comfortable or significant.
• you tend to stick with limited material generated by people with opinions like yours. 
• it's a dangerous illusion that you are free to choose what you read.
• there can be pressure to get involved in spur of the moment uninformed or heated discussions.

On balance, it's just a very different way of 'doing news', neither obviously better nor worse. And, of course, it can be blended with the older conventions of TV, radio and newspaper. It all has to be kept in its place time-wise but I think I'm a little better informed than I used to be and a little more inclined to check things out with others - 'Was that article about a green moon appearing every 420 years really based on fact?' 

Online news is undoubtedly changing power structures. I'm excited about the effect this is having on politics. The political world as we knew it is already being challenged - think of the Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump phenomena or the degree to which there's now grass roots exchange between profoundly different cultures. Three years ago I did not regularly converse with people in Indonesia and China or with people of other faiths. This is all a bit of a melting pot and I don't think we can yet see how (or if) the conventional political structures will adapt and assimilate. Corbyn is a good case in point: it's undoubtedly true he has an enormous grassroots following - you can see this clearly on the internet and in the fact that local parties report figures like 800% increases in membership. But how much of this is based on purely internet activity which the parliamentary party system can choose to ignore? And how much is the response to Corbyn simply too disparate to have any long term impact - people see him as a potential leader for their passing cause? In the case of Trump and some of the right wing movements in Europe, the effect of the internet has been to produce knee-jerk reactions and over-heated debate - this is less benign than the Corbyn phenomenon. What we can be sure about is that politics will be different in 25 years time and all this will have a profound impact on both national and international balances of power.

I'm even more interested in the effect internet comment is having on authority. Organisations that have depended on a central authority which to some degree controls what people can know (the most fundamental kind of power) and the parameters within which they say and do things have already begun to struggle. A leadership team commissions a report or sets out a mission statement and it is now immediately open to highly eclectic degrees of scrutiny. Polite critical comment may be welcome; tearing something mercilessly to shreds may end in tears or sackings but authority will have been undermined, public image and relationships within the organisation damaged. I believe we have yet to see how conventional authority structures give way to a more democratic and less 'expert protected' approach to organisational development.

There was a cartoon doing the rounds at Christmas. The angels appear to the shepherds and begin to sing 'Peace to God's people on  earth...'  'Yes, yes,' say the shepherds, 'It's already been on twitter!' So what does the digital angel - harbinger of profound truth - look like and how will internet communities recognise such messengers? 

       

Abuse as Crime Against Truth

It's very distressing to read frequent stories of abuse or allegations of abuse by individuals and institutions. Since the revelations about Jimmy Savile these stories seem to have become endemic. Behind each story is pain: the pain of the abuse itself, the pain of not being believed and having evidence publicly picked over, and the pain of being rejected, blamed or further abused by institutions hell-bent on protecting reputations and insurance costs. There's also the pain of those accused wrongly and the near impossibility of restoring a reputation thrown into question; again, lives are indiscriminately picked over and the public is not always able to distinguish proven from alleged behaviour.

These two extremes of pain - that of the victim not believed and that of the person wrongly accused - throw into relief the real nature of the crime of abuse. Because of its covert nature and the shame and difficulty in speaking about it experienced by many victims, abuse plays with truth in a way that is perniciously corrupt. Its hiddenness spawns untruth upon untruth. Ultimately, in many cases, it is simply not possible to get to the truth or to do so in a way that provides sufficiently convincing evidence. This playing with the nature of truth is what does such lasting, deep damage to both victims and the wrongly accused. Abuse is not only a crime against an individual, it is a crime against a community, putting intolerable strain on normal relationships and tearing up the rule book when it comes to trust. Over many years, often via a many-layered journey of painful, slow attempts at investigation, the abuser appears to 'win' by destroying the possibility of ultimate truth-telling and, with it, the capacity for trust and faith. There have been suicides.

So there are rightly severe penalties for those who abuse. There  ought to be tougher scrutiny and severe penalties for institutions that frustrate investigation, dissemble and cover up pointers (especially early ones) to abuse. This is not about suspecting abuse in places where there is none or about regulating behaviour in over-constraining ways, it is about a seismic change in institutional culture.

At the heart of physical, psychological or sexual abuse is the misuse of power and the creation of corrupt networks where power is inappropriately exercised. Healthy organisations have good levels of awareness about how power is exercised and how this differs from the exercise of influence. Power does not ultimately allow those over whom is it exercised space for choice, influence does and can use choice as a positively or negatively motivating factor. In all organisations both power and influence are present in complex ways that are related to the core purpose of the organisation. To create a culture that lowers the incidence of abuse requires honest acknowledgement of the ways power is used, with robust, transparent safeguarding checks and regulatory processes in place. 

Perhaps more significant, however, is the role of influence in an organisation. Influence is directly related to character. Being this or that sort of a person in this or that kind of context sways the opinion, motivation and behaviour of others. What do members of an organisation think about the exercise of power in their context? What is their attitude to whistle-blowing, bullying, gender relationships and minority voices? Most importantly, what behaviours are regarded as unacceptable or damaging and why? Healthy organisations spend time and resources promoting this kind of open discussion and look for behavioural changes as a result. Without this kind of education and re-education, opportunity for abuse will continue to occur and, as seems to have been the case in too many places, flourish.

What are the danger signs in an organisation?

• Defensive attitudes to questions, suggestions and criticism
• Refusal to take seriously concerns or complaints
• Similar concerns raised about behaviour by unrelated sources
• Frequent occurrence of low-grade bullying or humiliation
• Covert, hidden behaviour or behaviour that obsessively seeks anonymity
• Buck-passing and inability to resolve issues
• Lack of freedom of expression
• Lip service to and over-reliance on policies that are not properly carried out.

It will be interesting to see what the Goddard Enquiry uncovers. From current reports, it appears to be the case that abuse and its concealment occur either where there is an obvious imbalance of power (eg. the care system, the judiciary, schools and over-stretched police forces) or where belief systems are involved (eg. politics, religious groups, media). In the case of power imbalance, rather than simply escalating regulation of these bodies (though that may be appropriate) it would be good to see a thorough-going examination and incorporation of leadership structures and practices from institutions that show a low incidence of abuse - that could mean similar institutions from other countries or dissimilar institutions demonstrating high degrees of effectiveness in related fields. 

In the case of belief systems impacting on the incidence of abuse there must be, first of all, an honesty about the extent of abuse and the ways it has/has not been addressed at the highest level in these organisations. Only when this is achieved can these groups begin to address the painful and difficult questions about how belief and behaviour are related. In particular, such groups should focus on the way that authority, leadership, sexuality, gender roles and image are portrayed, enacted and talked about in their organisations. This is something which, although externally required, can only be achieved through changed attitudes among those in power and a willingness to listen to voices previously discounted or overlooked so that fresh truth and a more rounded story begins to emerge.

Here are two examples of projects I have recently come across that are working toward cultural change at opposite ends of the age spectrum: 4YP Bristol's project The Bristol Ideal which works in schools to help children explore healthy relationships and Age Action Ireland's Do Something which does inspirational work across generations. Both projects demonstrate an approach that shows commitment to the value of communication in bringing about much needed cultural change. 4YP works in the area of effective, accessible health education and advice for young people. Age Action's website also hosts a blog about issues to do with ageing - well worth a visit in my opinion! Click on the links below for further information.

Age Action Workshops
here

Schools Project to Prevent Abuse
here