The Devil and the Bag of Nails (available exclusively on #kindle) is a novella about the activities of journalists, their underhand tactics and bitter rivalries and the importance of the scoop. So far, so very topical except that the book is set in 1732 and is about the shenanigans that accompanied the passing of the first Gin Act.
The story demonstrates both sides of the Press. In the first place it shows that it has been divided on political lines since its inception, initially between Whig (labour/lib-dem) and Tory (conservatives and far right) and political rivalries are what gave the Press its lifeblood in the first place. Expecting the papers to be politically neutral is depriving them of their birthright. The power of the Murdoch press in the UK is not due to its size or importance but the fact that the press is so evenly divided the Murdoch papers (politically unaffiliated) are able to hold the balance. Therefore, if they change sides as in the last election, it is likely to tip the balance and sway public opinion. It was for this reason the last two governments were inclined to court their good opinion not because Rupert Murdoch owns an unfeasibly large proportion of the press because in fact he doesn't.
Secondly it reveals the importance of a free press in allowing political campaigns to be fought on paper instead of in the streets. The hero of the story, the editor of "The Champion" (so successful it is published three times a week and sells a whopping 2000 copies) is a reformer. His rival, the slippery Sylvanus Urban whose name is not his own, has formerly been involved in The Mug Street Riots when political rivalries spilled onto the street and ended in the army opening fire on the rioters. These men have discovered that if the pen is not necessarily mightier than the sword it is at least less destructive. In the story it is, rather unusually, the pro-Government Champion that is campaigning on behalf of The Gin Act that will enforce licensing of gin shops which are causing disastrous levels of alcohol addiction among the urban poor depicted graphically in Hogarth's Gin Alley.
From its beginning Britain's free press has campaigned on behalf of the weak, poor and vulnerable. It has campaigned for good causes and against corruption in high places. Our current headlines are not new, nor should we be unduly shocked by them.
But we should be disturbed by the direction all this fuss is leading in. The Press in Britain has not always been free. It's roots lie in the 1670s when a government with absolutist tendencies was prepared to dissolve parliament at the first sign of dissent and deprive its citizens of any kind of political representation apart from riot and armed insurrection. At the same time it imposed strict laws of censorship which effectively made it a capital offence to write or say anything against anybody. Brave men flouted the law to print the truth and campaign vigorously for a parliamentary system that was fair, representative and incorruptible.
It took quite a long time to get this and clearly we still have some way to go but these men, not yet journalists but followed by the cream of the profession, were heroes. We still need such heroes. This is no time to turn our backs on them. I poke fun at the editors in the story mocking their pretensions and bitter rivalry but underlying the comedy there is a very important battle being fought with disastrous and dangerous consequences for the losers. We may sometimes dismiss the papers as tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers but it is not all frivolous. A successful democratic system needs an informed electorate. We may not always love our press but we need them.
The papers make a lot of enemies and just lately they have made a lot in parliament which is a pity because the history of the press and parliament go hand in hand. MPs may be pretty mad (not entirely without justification) at the journalists but it would be a mistake for them to see this present crisis as an opportunity for revenge. In the future they will need the press and the journalists will need them. There are and will be many occasions when the people will look to them both to provide them with a voice.
The public mood in contrast to the media and parliamentary frenzy is one of gentle resignation. Yes we know our journalists are a dodgy lot. Sometimes they go too far in search of a story and we would rather they went easy on people who do not elect to live and die by the media. We raise our eyebrows at editors who claim they are not responsible for the activities of those they hire. Surely such actions as illegal phone-hacking should never be undertaken without the sanction of the editor? If there is a public interest defence it is the editor who should decide this not some hapless reporter who is over-anxious to keep his job.
It is very proper that there should be an inquiry into any criminal activities carried out on or behalf of journalists so that lines may be drawn making it clear what will and will not be regarded as in the public interest but journalists must be allowed to sail close to the wind. Self-regulation may seem a contradiction in terms but in the end the press has a very firm and powerful regulator, to wit, you and me, Joe Public. Let us remain the first resort in regulating the press just as the press is, on many occasions the last resort by which we may defend ourselves.
