Well known to many of us as a writer of Crime Fiction, Anthony Horowitz is also a keen observer of the media and the issues of freedom of press. He was against the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the British press which took place a decade ago, fearing that it would reduce the freedom of press and information. However, he is far from happy about how the clickbait nature of even the printed press seems to promote a culture where we meet each other with hostility and suspicion - noting how the press thrives on getting us wound up about issues we had scarcely thought about or even less worried about a moment ago. Maybe I misquote or misrepresent him, the link to the interview is below and I think he makes a very good point.
Has the internet created a culture of reiteration and escalation of conflict? Yet also a comforting echo chamber surrounding us with the points of view we largely like and enjoy, with the opportunity to mute or block arguments that could have moved us or that make us uncomfortable?
Do we need for there to be more of this, or less, and what is the natural course that internet connectivity is going to take in interhuman relationships?
Is this essentially new or is it the same old?
Are internet services more profitable if set up to have us avoid facing conflict - by muting and blocking perhaps - or do they amplify disagreement in order to make us engage more with posts that deliberately or unintentionally anger and upset us? Perhaps that both these mechanisms are profitable and help build engagement and direct traffic. If this is a problem, can we then do something to fix it or avoid some of the damage?
Fifty years ago we had little or no ability to get our thoughts out to the broader public yet now we can do it at little or no cost. That is a huge bonus for democracy if used well and if we know how to place what we read in context, something that can be almost impossible even for those who try their best. Mostly, of course, we don’t have the time or we don’t set aside the time. Fifty years ago, in the mid 1970s, my father would be astonished that the carefully crafted letters to the editor he sent to conservative national newspapers on current affairs were never published. At that time my father was modestly left leaning in his politics and it was clear to me, ever the cynic even as a kid, that obviously they would not be printing this as it was against their politics. If anything, the more persuasive and well honed the letters, the greater the certainty that they would not be considered quite right for the paper. It was also clear to me that if he did succeed in engaging, say, shipping magnates in conversation about their methods of trade and business during the oil crisis, then clearly these millionaire consortia would be in a far stronger position to have their voices hear than he would.
Now step ahead to the 2010s and we all have a voice on the internet - it may not be a powerful voice and if it is then we can be muted very very quickly, but a voice it is and at times things can spread with surprising speed and bring down governments or end careers. This is suddenly a Gutenberg Press on every sofa and on every bus. It is hard to argue that we have been silenced - instead we see information overload, doom scrolling and a clear feeling that the world is going to hell in a 5G enabled handcart.
Information overload and the short snappy simple fix to complex problems
I think I was giving Theresa May credit for pointing out on the Goalhanger “Leading” podcast (Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell interviewing) that complex problems required considerable work and deliberation, rarely simple fixes and clever one-liners.
Leading Podcast - Theresa May interview
This is far from specific for the internet age, however, and I recently saw much the same message pointed out by the English philosopher Susan Stebbing (1885-1943) in her 1939 book Thinking to Some Purpose
"I am convinced of the urgent need for a democratic people to think clearly without the distortions due to unconscious bias and unrecognized ignorance. Our failures in thinking are in part due to faults which we could to some extent overcome were we to see clearly how these faults arise."
And even more to the point, something which could easily have been written by someone watching 2016 go by:
"There is an urgent need today for the citizens of a democracy to think well. It is not enough to have freedom of the Press and parliamentary institutions. Our difficulties are due partly to our own stupidity, partly to the exploitation of that stupidity, and partly to our own prejudices and personal desires."
And on the digested version - the potted thinking:
"Some forms of ineffective thinking are due to our not unnatural desire to have confident beliefs about complicated matters with regard to which we must take some action or other. We are sometimes too lazy, usually too busy, and often too ignorant to think out what is involved in the statements we so readily accept. We easily fall into the habit of accepting compressed statements which save us from the trouble of thinking. Thus arises what I shall call 'Potted Thinking'.
It would seem that potted thinking and distilled political messaging of simple fixes to complicated problems precedes the internet by at least decades and possibly by centuries. I am not historian but take a look at those caricatures of Nelson and Napoleon a couple of centuries and tell me what you think. Still the same old, perhaps, but now just with us all having a somewhat more efficiently of getting those cabdriver solutions out to many more people - we may be guilty of liking and boosting stuff we haven’t properly read.
Now that we are getting to know each other, bear with me for a moment though I am sharing another pet peeve on how big decisions are made. Now, imagine a decision of considerable impact and complexity where the full document runs to maybe 800 pages of analysis of likely pro and cons and some estimates of cost and time to implement. Putting HS2 together again, maybe, or redistributing refugees among Western countries.
I am putting myself in front of the queue of people who will not be reading that document, but I will be willing to help appoint a representative to read and discuss the topic and vote on it in Parliament. This concept is clearly not without its flaws. First, there may not be a sensible person on the ballot that I think can be trusted to make a sound decision. Second, even if the person in question is capable of reaching the right decision then his or her party will likely demand they vote with the party. And third - which I think is where the wheels truly come off - is that my representative or the party (whoever decides) could base the vote not on a careful reading of the proposal held against the values they believe to be appropriate but on what has been found in a focus group or in an opinion poll. This, and please may I have some strong drink to help me through it, is putting the cart in front of the horse and pretend that not only I but also all the other merry men and women out there have blocked out three afternoons to read the background material and reach a decision. Not of course going to happen. The idea is so bad that only a referendum could be worse.
Useless, harmful and impossible is how Maurice Cornforth described analysis in philosophy but I suppose this could be said to apply also to analysing the value of a proposal by referendum. Incidentally, Moore rightly (I think) pointed out that it could hardly be all three at the same time. Still, on the surface, a referendum is by far the most democratic process for reaching decisions as it is very hard to put forward the argument that everyone should NOT be given equal opportunity to decide the outcome. Indeed, this would all be fine and good assuming that all who vote fully understand the pros and cons of the proposal.
I would add to that another caveat, i.e. that of the proposal not being divisive enough to have the potential to split the country down the middle as this would make implementation morally wrong and also likely unworkable.
I am currently - and happy to discuss this as I may well be wrong - leaning towards the conclusion that you can’t seriously entertain the idea of having a referendum on a matter that splits up to country in two even sized parts as this is destructively divisive. Nor can you reasonably have a referendum on a topic that is not divisive, e.g. some matter that would only be supported by 20% of voters and could just as well or better be addressed by representative democracy.
Let me know what you think. Is the soundbite and quick fix something that follows from all of us having voices on the internet and shouting too much for an in-depth appraisal of well thought out and detailed arguments? Or was it always there, just out of reach for most of us other than as passive recipients. Either way, thank you to listening to my voice and do enjoy the podcast links and let’s not forget Susan Stebbing.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.