Can the media have too much power? In the crudest papers, anything which makes money goes in, anything which doesn't is cut out. Huge headlines, semi-pornographic photographs, gross distortions of what people said and did, and crude sensationalism are explained by 'That's what the people want, and in any case, that's how I make my money'. We have a Press Code of decency which editors agree to keep, but which some of them are ready to ignore when an exciting story appears. Of course such editors justify their sensationalism by referring to 'freedom of the press'. They claim a moral right to publish disgusting or distorted material. Here is a very difficult line to draw between insisting on decency (good) and accepting censorship (bad). This problem has always existed.
Different groups in our society often object to the way they are portrayed in the press. Partly because the government was worried about anti-Muslim articles, it tried to pass a law forbidding 'incitement to religious hatred'. Journalists were very angry at this proposal because it suggested incipient censorship. Why should they not attack Islam (or Christianity or Buddhism) if they wished? What was sacrosanct about religious belief in today's secular society? Eventually the law was passed after long debates in Parliament and some adjustment by the Government. It is an example of the difficulty of protecting vulnerable and sensitive people versus the right in a democratic country not to be censored for disagreeing with protected groups.
Russians reading the papers in Britain are sometimes shocked at the criticism directed at the Prime Minister, other Ministers, other people in power, and sometimes people who cannot answer back (such as civil servants, the police, even teachers who have to protect their schools and pupils.) On the one hand, we would be shocked if we could not criticise our Prime Minister and any other public person or person with power. These are our elected servants, and we have a right tin investigate them and scrutinise what they do. You will not find British people (or no more than a tiny minority) who believe that 'the Leader' must be exempt from criticism or how else can he do his job? Nonsense, we will say: 'He must undergo criticism or how else can he do his job in serving us?'
On the other hand, the media can be cruel and sometimes unfair. We have a word, 'the pack' (like a pack of wolves) to describe journalists when they get together to hunt down someone whom they have decided to accuse of wrongdoing. In such cases a Minister (for example) probably has done something wrong; there really is a news story in the affair and no doubt some details should be published. Sometimes, however, the wrongdoing is small and the pack is very large and ferocious. Journalists' investigations can destroy people who do not deserve to be destroyed. It is also possible that the campaigns of certain newspapers against ruling governments can actually affect elections. Of course people are entitled to read what they choose to read in the papers and then make up their minds about how to vote. But fear-making campaigns are not always good for democracy.
Journalists as a group are no saints! They can be unscrupulous, ruthless and are often somewhat dazed by alcohol. But the best journalists have a passion for finding out a good story by poking their noses into areas where powerful people want no noses poked. Once they have a proper and serious and usually controversial story, they speak out clearly and honestly, helping to enlighten us. In that way we become - just a little - better-informed and more responsible citizens. In Britain we take it for granted that journalists are free to do their job. In other parts of the world brave journalists get killed for speaking out.
For all its failings and errors, the freedom of the media is surely 'a great good' as the vast majority of people throughout the world insist. In this chapter I have tried to show that in Britain we have not only freedom of the press but that our public broadcasting service, the BBC, is an institution with a legal duty to be impartial and to uphold the highest standards of media responsibility. In this area of public life we have much to be proud of.
Chapter 8. Some brief thoughts on our Armed Forces
Britain has its own Army, Navy and Air Force. It is also a member of NATO and contributes troops to the NATO forces although it can refuse to do so if the Government decides that national interests indicate that we should not take part in a particular conflict. As members of NATO we contribute to their nuclear force. Britain also has its own 'Independent Nuclear Deterrent'. The use, purpose, cost and value of this independent deterrent (nuclear weapons in submarines) continues to be debated as it has been since the 1950s. It apparently ensures that we have a place on the United Nations Security Council, although the logic of our holding that place is long out of date since many countries now have nuclear weapons but no Security Council seat. Because the debate is always part of our political discussion it is possible that our 'independent deterrent' may be scrapped but we shall continue to be part of NATO.
Our military forces are professionals; conscription (compulsory military service) was abolished in the late 1950s. Most European countries kept and many continue to keep some form of conscription, but the deeply unpopular practice of sending 18-year-old boys to barracks for a year or two has not been one of our problems for nearly fifty years. Our military officers are often highly educated. Ordinary soldiers come either from traditional army families where the children follow their fathers and uncles into the forces, or, in general, from among the poorer and less fortunate groups in the population, especially from areas where employment is difficult. These young men and women undergo rigorous training both in military skills and in the various peacekeeping and country-rebuilding duties which they are required to carry out. So we have a small, highly trained, professional army, navy (the Royal Navy or RN) and air force (the Royal Air Force or RAF).
Until the mid 1990s, British forces had, for many years, been mostly employed in peace-keeping duties in Northern Ireland and in small trouble spots around the world. The wars in the former Yugoslavia gave many soldiers their first experience of active service. After the terrorists attacks on the United States of America in September 2001, NATO decided to use member forces in Afghanistan in order to track down and eliminate those they believed to be responsible for planning the attacks. Nearly nine years later NATO forces are still there, including a British contingent.
More controversially, Britain supported the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003. Our military forces are not large, so that one problem for the politicians and senior officers was to work out how to spread soldiers and support groups across several areas of active operations. Public debate (outside the political arguments) has focused on whether we should enlarge the army, reduce the size of the army or keep it much as it is. There is also much public discussion of how well-equipped our soldiers should be. Questions are asked about whether they carry enough defensive armour. Also, since they are rarely involved in big battles, and much of their work is concerned with defeating guerillas while trying to win the trust of the people whose countries they are inhabiting, the soldiers themselves ask for different kinds of training and support - to help the local people. By international standards it seems that they are quite good at this strange but significant extension to a soldier's duties.