Dangers lurk in the cut and thrust of public life

I suppose it depends on what you’re giving and what you’re about to receive, but memories of the yuletide gift exchange all those years ago came to mind as I mused on the contemporary exchanges regularly traded in the sombre debating chamber and court room overlooking the square.

Credibility and esteem are the twin towers of public life; the glare of publicity is penetrating and not always generous. For those who court the spotlight, speaking out in public will always encounter risk. Those

who do generally abide by a well-established code – they know the

rules which they flout at their peril.

It might seem like open season, but there is a balance of understanding as to what is acceptable and what is not. Those who engage professionally take it in their stride. Indeed, anyone who has passed through the valley of the shadow of journalism school will recognise the overhanging crags and boulders.

In the cut and thrust of debate, there is no bar to making your opponent feel uncomfortable. Indeed, you’d expect some degree of theatre across opposite sides of a debate, particularly in a party political set-piece, where presentation often counts more than substance.

You would certainly be forgiven for believing that there is more than a hint of manipulated choreography about it all. Who can forget the old adage of the debating club which distances the speakers from the views they express?

However, it’s when academic bravado sours into personal defamation, whether actual or perceived, that raw sensitivities can easily be exposed and recrimination becomes bitter.

Individuals have recourse to law if they feel they have been the victim of a statement or inference which tends to expose them to hatred, ridicule or contempt; cause them to be shunned or avoided; lower them in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; or disparage them in their business, trade, office or profession.

The words ‘tends to’ are important, since the aggrieved parties do not actually have to show that the words did expose them to hatred, ridicule etc. So the pursuit of such claims often finds the parties churning through murky and expensive legal proceedings, with the risk of further harm to the very reputation they are striving to restore.

Humour, which often features in such disputes, has always served as the great leveller. What once was the preserve of the political cartoonists and sketch-writers has increasingly influenced our judgment about performance, and stature in

public life.

IT is, of course, not new. From the extravagant satirical 18th century Hogarthian canvases through the incisive wit of Private Eye to the outrageous lampoons of Spitting Image, public figures have run the gauntlet of scrutiny and ridicule. Over time, there have unquestionably been many examples of malice and character assassination.

Furthermore, reader ‘loyalty’ will expect favourite titles to reflect particular entrenched attitudes towards individuals and prejudices which are unlikely to be diluted in the event that fact contradicts them.

At the same time, there is a rich tradition of innuendo, intrusion and subterfuge lurking behind ‘investigative reporting’ which claims justification for sweeping aside all artifice of privacy in the name of ‘public interest’.

The truth will out, will it not, regardless of how excavated.

For many unconnected reasons, the media has found itself recently in the spotlight – as much for how the message has been gathered as for how it has been expressed.

The earthquake which swallowed the News of the World rocked many perceptions about how the pursuit of information and individual privacy should be balanced. The long-running Leveson Inquiry into behind-the-scenes malpractice, which exposed tarnished links between politicians, the police, journalists and a bunch of C-list celebrities, has degenerated into a farcical combination of a show trial, platform polemics and publicity opportunity.

It has also exposed the fragility of an industry famed for its professional rigour descending to dishing the dirt on its own doorstep.

In our media-savvy world, we have become used to expressing ourselves so much more freely, often on the spur of the moment, without recourse to consequence, because it may have seemed appropriate at the time. Have we become more robust, or is there just more repartee going on?

‘Soundbites’ offer a headline platform for instant wisdom, and if there’s the opportunity for a ‘clever’ barb to show off literary wit or put-down prowess, so much the better.

But there is one cardinal consequence: if you give it out, you’ve got to expect it back.

It is a ringing endorsement of the most mature democracy that public figures –politicians, especially – face the most rigorous scrutiny. The professional ‘adversarial’ media interview and, latterly, the use of anonymous tweeting or pusillanimous blogging have replaced the stocks on the village green.

But those in the spotlight have the right to receive fair treatment. In return, they are nothing without an ingredient vital for anyone prepared to expose themselves to public life: humour and the humility to absorb, reflect and respond.

Call it a mantle or skin, the thickness of which determines self-confidence and respect. It’s a sure-fire image maker in a context where open consensus and exchange have to be preferable to the back-stabbing anonymity of the internet.

It’s not a bad defence mechanism, either, since in a fair-minded society it dispels the conviction that if you keep saying mean things about others, everyone else is bound to be doing the same to you.