WEBVTT

00:00:00.472 --> 00:00:02.463
I'd like to start, if I may,

00:00:02.463 --> 00:00:05.327
with the story of the Paisley snail.

00:00:05.327 --> 00:00:08.525
On the evening of the 26th of August, 1928,

00:00:08.525 --> 00:00:10.483
May Donoghue took a train from Glasgow

00:00:10.483 --> 00:00:13.245
to the town of Paisley, seven miles east of the city,

00:00:13.245 --> 00:00:15.697
and there at the Wellmeadow Café,

00:00:15.697 --> 00:00:18.869
she had a Scot's ice cream float,

00:00:18.869 --> 00:00:20.347
a mix of ice cream and ginger beer

00:00:20.347 --> 00:00:22.609
bought for her by a friend.

00:00:22.609 --> 00:00:24.964
The ginger beer came in a brown, opaque bottle

00:00:24.964 --> 00:00:28.827
labeled "D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley."

00:00:28.827 --> 00:00:30.903
She drank some of the ice cream float,

00:00:30.903 --> 00:00:32.614
but as the remaining ginger beer was poured

00:00:32.614 --> 00:00:34.288
into her tumbler,

00:00:34.288 --> 00:00:36.142
a decomposed snail

00:00:36.142 --> 00:00:39.385
floated to the surface of her glass.

00:00:39.385 --> 00:00:40.713
Three days later, she was admitted

00:00:40.713 --> 00:00:42.045
to the Glasgow Royal Infirmary

00:00:42.045 --> 00:00:44.414
and diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis

00:00:44.414 --> 00:00:46.583
and shock.

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:46.583 --> 00:00:49.528
The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson that followed

00:00:49.528 --> 00:00:52.045
set a very important legal precedent:

00:00:52.045 --> 00:00:53.935
Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer,

00:00:53.935 --> 00:00:56.174
was held to have a clear duty of care

00:00:56.174 --> 00:00:58.160
towards May Donoghue,

00:00:58.160 --> 00:01:00.277
even though there was no contract between them,

00:01:00.277 --> 00:01:03.014
and, indeed, she hadn't even bought the drink.

00:01:03.014 --> 00:01:05.974
One of the judges, Lord Atkin, described it like this:

00:01:05.974 --> 00:01:09.038
you must take care to avoid acts or omissions

00:01:09.038 --> 00:01:11.083
which you can reasonably foresee

00:01:11.083 --> 00:01:14.273
would be likely to injure your neighbor.

00:01:14.273 --> 00:01:16.631
Indeed, one wonders that without a duty of care,

00:01:16.631 --> 00:01:18.455
how many of people would have had to suffer

00:01:18.455 --> 00:01:22.081
from gastroenteritis before Stevenson
eventually went out of business.

NOTE Paragraph

00:01:22.081 --> 00:01:24.252
Now please hang on to that Paisley snail story,

00:01:24.252 --> 00:01:27.239
because it's an important principle.

00:01:27.239 --> 00:01:30.287
Last year, the Hansard Society,
a nonpartisan charity

00:01:30.287 --> 00:01:32.161
which seeks to strengthen parliamentary democracy

00:01:32.161 --> 00:01:35.321
and encourage greater public involvement in politics

00:01:35.321 --> 00:01:37.909
published, along side their annual audit

00:01:37.909 --> 00:01:40.828
of political engagement, an additional section

00:01:40.828 --> 00:01:43.827
devoted entirely to politics and the media.

00:01:43.827 --> 00:01:45.972
Here are a couple of rather depressing observations

00:01:45.972 --> 00:01:48.303
from that survey.

00:01:48.303 --> 00:01:50.375
Tabloid newspapers do not appear

00:01:50.375 --> 00:01:53.394
to advance the political citizenship of their readers,

00:01:53.394 --> 00:01:54.935
relative even to those

00:01:54.935 --> 00:01:58.009
who read no newspapers whatsoever.

00:01:58.009 --> 00:02:01.323
Tabloid-only readers are twice as likely to agree

00:02:01.323 --> 00:02:03.189
with a negative view of politics

00:02:03.189 --> 00:02:05.702
than readers of no newspapers.

00:02:05.702 --> 00:02:07.618
They're not just less politically engaged.

00:02:07.618 --> 00:02:10.070
They are consuming media that reinforces

00:02:10.070 --> 00:02:11.798
their negative evaluation of politics,

00:02:11.798 --> 00:02:14.886
thereby contributing to a fatalistic and cynical

00:02:14.886 --> 00:02:18.206
attitude to democracy and their own role within it.

00:02:18.206 --> 00:02:20.150
Little wonder that the report concluded that

00:02:20.150 --> 00:02:23.448
in this respect, the press, particularly the tabloids,

00:02:23.448 --> 00:02:25.648
appear not to be living up to the importance

00:02:25.648 --> 00:02:28.684
of their role in our democracy.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:28.684 --> 00:02:30.513
Now I doubt if anyone in this room would seriously

00:02:30.513 --> 00:02:32.297
challenge that view.

00:02:32.297 --> 00:02:34.713
But if Hansard are right, and they usually are,

00:02:34.713 --> 00:02:36.689
then we've got a very serious problem on our hands,

00:02:36.689 --> 00:02:38.817
and it's one that I'd like to spend the next 10 minutes

00:02:38.817 --> 00:02:41.385
focusing upon.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:41.385 --> 00:02:43.237
Since the Paisley snail,

00:02:43.237 --> 00:02:45.763
and especially over the past decade or so,

00:02:45.763 --> 00:02:47.343
a great deal of thinking has been developed

00:02:47.343 --> 00:02:49.386
around the notion of a duty of care

00:02:49.386 --> 00:02:51.817
as it relates to a number of aspects of civil society.

00:02:51.817 --> 00:02:54.561
Generally a duty of care arises when one individual

00:02:54.561 --> 00:02:57.449
or a group of individuals undertakes an activity

00:02:57.449 --> 00:02:59.657
which has the potential to cause harm to another,

00:02:59.657 --> 00:03:02.586
either physically, mentally, or economically.

00:03:02.586 --> 00:03:04.919
This is principally focused on obvious areas,

00:03:04.919 --> 00:03:08.193
such as our empathetic response
to children and young people,

00:03:08.193 --> 00:03:10.718
to our service personnel, and
to the elderly and infirm.

00:03:10.718 --> 00:03:14.757
It is seldom, if ever, extended
to equally important arguments

00:03:14.757 --> 00:03:19.160
around the fragility of our
present system of government,

00:03:19.160 --> 00:03:22.807
to the notion that honesty, accuracy, and impartiality

00:03:22.807 --> 00:03:24.769
are fundamental to the process of building

00:03:24.769 --> 00:03:26.559
and embedding an informed,

00:03:26.559 --> 00:03:29.453
participatory democracy.

00:03:29.453 --> 00:03:30.889
And the more you think about it,

00:03:30.889 --> 00:03:32.767
the stranger that is.

NOTE Paragraph

00:03:32.767 --> 00:03:34.337
A couple of years ago, I had the pleasure

00:03:34.337 --> 00:03:35.967
of opening a brand new school

00:03:35.967 --> 00:03:37.507
in the northeast of England.

00:03:37.507 --> 00:03:41.200
It had been renamed by its pupils as Academy 360.

00:03:41.200 --> 00:03:42.775
As I walked through their impressive,

00:03:42.775 --> 00:03:44.350
glass-covered atrium,

00:03:44.350 --> 00:03:46.183
in front of me, emblazoned on the wall

00:03:46.183 --> 00:03:47.839
in letters of fire

00:03:47.839 --> 00:03:50.863
was Marcus Aurelius's famous injunction:

00:03:50.863 --> 00:03:53.487
if it's not true, don't say it,

00:03:53.487 --> 00:03:56.879
if it's not right, don't do it.

00:03:56.879 --> 00:03:58.558
The head teacher saw me staring at it,

00:03:58.558 --> 00:04:01.967
and he said, "Oh, that's our school motto."

00:04:01.967 --> 00:04:03.247
On the train back to London,

00:04:03.247 --> 00:04:05.047
I couldn't get it out of my mind.

00:04:05.047 --> 00:04:07.384
I kept thinking, can it really have taken us

00:04:07.384 --> 00:04:09.886
over 2,000 years to come to terms

00:04:09.886 --> 00:04:11.767
with that simple notion

00:04:11.767 --> 00:04:14.673
as being our minimum expectation of each other?

00:04:14.673 --> 00:04:17.158
Isn't it time that we develop this concept

00:04:17.158 --> 00:04:19.103
of a duty of care

00:04:19.103 --> 00:04:21.145
and extended it to include a care

00:04:21.145 --> 00:04:24.485
for our shared but increasingly
endangered democratic values?

00:04:24.485 --> 00:04:26.589
After all, the absence of a duty of care

00:04:26.589 --> 00:04:28.102
within many professions

00:04:28.102 --> 00:04:30.435
can all too easily amount to
accusations of negligence,

00:04:30.435 --> 00:04:33.773
and that being the case, can we be
really comfortable with the thought

00:04:33.773 --> 00:04:35.813
that we're in effect being negligent

00:04:35.813 --> 00:04:38.773
in respect of the health of our own societies

00:04:38.773 --> 00:04:41.585
and the values that necessarily underpin them?

00:04:41.585 --> 00:04:44.103
Could anyone honestly suggest, on the evidence,

00:04:44.103 --> 00:04:47.805
that the same media which
Hansard so roundly condemned

00:04:47.805 --> 00:04:51.169
have taken sufficient care to avoid behaving

00:04:51.169 --> 00:04:54.349
in ways which they could reasonably have foreseen

00:04:54.349 --> 00:04:56.450
would be likely to undermine or even damage

00:04:56.450 --> 00:05:00.209
our inherently fragile democratic settlement.

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:00.209 --> 00:05:01.645
Now there will be those who will argue

00:05:01.645 --> 00:05:03.071
that this could all too easily drift into a form

00:05:03.071 --> 00:05:05.270
of censorship, albeit self-censorship,

00:05:05.270 --> 00:05:07.103
but I don't buy that argument.

00:05:07.103 --> 00:05:09.087
It has to be possible

00:05:09.087 --> 00:05:11.293
to balance freedom of expression

00:05:11.293 --> 00:05:14.685
with wider moral and social responsibilities.

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:14.685 --> 00:05:16.397
Let me explain why by taking the example

00:05:16.397 --> 00:05:19.090
from my own career as a filmmaker.

00:05:19.090 --> 00:05:21.006
Throughout that career, I never accepted

00:05:21.006 --> 00:05:22.411
that a filmmaker should set about putting

00:05:22.411 --> 00:05:25.245
their own work outside or above what he or she

00:05:25.245 --> 00:05:27.965
believed to be a decent set of values

00:05:27.965 --> 00:05:31.093
for their own life, their own family,

00:05:31.093 --> 00:05:34.597
and the future of the society in which we all live.

00:05:34.597 --> 00:05:36.063
I'd go further.

00:05:36.063 --> 00:05:38.525
A responsible filmmaker should
never devalue their work

00:05:38.525 --> 00:05:41.086
to a point at which it becomes less than true

00:05:41.086 --> 00:05:44.730
to the world they themselves wish to inhabit.

00:05:44.730 --> 00:05:47.685
As I see it, filmmakers, journalists, even bloggers

00:05:47.685 --> 00:05:50.840
are all required to face up to the social expectations

00:05:50.840 --> 00:05:54.411
that come with combining the
intrinsic power of their medium

00:05:54.411 --> 00:05:57.830
with their well-honed professional skills.

00:05:57.830 --> 00:06:00.702
Obviously this is not a mandated duty,

00:06:00.702 --> 00:06:03.023
but for the gifted filmmaker
and the responsible journalist

00:06:03.023 --> 00:06:04.655
or even the blogger it strikes me as being

00:06:04.655 --> 00:06:06.989
utterly inescapable.

NOTE Paragraph

00:06:06.989 --> 00:06:09.618
We should always remember that our notion

00:06:09.618 --> 00:06:12.525
of individual freedom and
its partner, creative freedom,

00:06:12.525 --> 00:06:14.320
is comparatively new

00:06:14.320 --> 00:06:16.597
in the history of Western ideas,

00:06:16.597 --> 00:06:18.530
and for that reason, it's often undervalued

00:06:18.530 --> 00:06:20.693
and can be very quickly undermined.

00:06:20.693 --> 00:06:23.029
It's a prize easily lost,

00:06:23.029 --> 00:06:24.684
and once lost, once surrendered,

00:06:24.684 --> 00:06:28.097
it can prove very, very hard to reclaim.

00:06:28.097 --> 00:06:29.926
And its first line of defense

00:06:29.926 --> 00:06:32.002
has to be our own standards,

00:06:32.002 --> 00:06:36.014
not those enforced on us by a censor or legislation,

00:06:36.014 --> 00:06:37.685
our own standards and our own integrity.

00:06:37.685 --> 00:06:39.740
Our integrity as we deal with those

00:06:39.740 --> 00:06:41.052
with whom we work

00:06:41.052 --> 00:06:44.714
and our own standards as we operate within society.

00:06:44.714 --> 00:06:46.292
And these standards of ours

00:06:46.292 --> 00:06:49.727
need to be all of a piece with
a sustainable social agenda.

00:06:49.727 --> 00:06:51.423
They're part of a collective responsibility,

00:06:51.423 --> 00:06:53.215
the responsibility of the artist or the journalist

00:06:53.215 --> 00:06:56.127
to deal with the world as it really is,

00:06:56.127 --> 00:06:58.208
and this, in turn, must go hand in hand

00:06:58.208 --> 00:07:01.024
with the responsibility of those governing society

00:07:01.024 --> 00:07:03.211
to also face up to that world,

00:07:03.211 --> 00:07:05.248
and not to be tempted to misappropriate

00:07:05.248 --> 00:07:07.808
the causes of its ills.

00:07:07.808 --> 00:07:10.561
Yet, as has become strikingly clear

00:07:10.561 --> 00:07:12.583
over the last couple of years,

00:07:12.583 --> 00:07:14.663
such responsibility has to a very great extent

00:07:14.663 --> 00:07:17.768
been abrogated by large sections of the media,

00:07:17.768 --> 00:07:19.616
and as a consequence, across the Western world,

00:07:19.616 --> 00:07:23.007
the over-simplistic policies of the parties of protests

00:07:23.007 --> 00:07:25.208
and their appeal to a largely disillusioned,

00:07:25.208 --> 00:07:26.904
older demographic,

00:07:26.904 --> 00:07:29.039
along with the apathy and obsession with the trivial

00:07:29.039 --> 00:07:30.887
that typifies at least some of the young,

00:07:30.887 --> 00:07:33.047
taken together, these and other similarly

00:07:33.047 --> 00:07:34.872
contemporary aberrations

00:07:34.872 --> 00:07:36.904
are threatening to squeeze the life

00:07:36.904 --> 00:07:40.648
out of active, informed debate and engagement,

00:07:40.648 --> 00:07:43.096
and I stress active.

NOTE Paragraph

00:07:43.096 --> 00:07:45.512
The most ardent of libertarians might argue

00:07:45.512 --> 00:07:48.583
that Donoghue v. Stevenson should
have been thrown out of court

00:07:48.583 --> 00:07:50.440
and that Stevenson would eventually
have gone out of business

00:07:50.440 --> 00:07:53.903
if he'd continued to sell ginger beer with snails in it.

00:07:53.903 --> 00:07:57.255
But most of us, I think, accept some small role

00:07:57.255 --> 00:08:00.579
for the state to enforce a duty of care,

00:08:00.579 --> 00:08:03.039
and the key word here is reasonable.

00:08:03.039 --> 00:08:06.080
Judges must ask, did they take reasonable care

00:08:06.080 --> 00:08:08.200
and could they have reasonably foreseen

00:08:08.200 --> 00:08:10.399
the consequences of their actions?

00:08:10.399 --> 00:08:13.119
Far from signifying overbearing state power,

00:08:13.119 --> 00:08:16.997
it's that small common sense test of reasonableness

00:08:16.997 --> 00:08:19.379
that I'd like us to apply to those in the media

00:08:19.379 --> 00:08:21.758
who, after all, set the tone and the content

00:08:21.758 --> 00:08:25.046
for much of our democratic discourse.

NOTE Paragraph

00:08:25.046 --> 00:08:27.334
Democracy, in order to work, requires that

00:08:27.334 --> 00:08:30.805
reasonable men and women take
the time to understand and debate

00:08:30.805 --> 00:08:33.152
difficult, sometimes complex issues,

00:08:33.152 --> 00:08:35.026
and they do so in an atmosphere which strives

00:08:35.026 --> 00:08:37.752
for the type of understanding that leads to,

00:08:37.752 --> 00:08:39.865
if not agreement, then at least a productive

00:08:39.865 --> 00:08:42.232
and workable compromise.

00:08:42.232 --> 00:08:44.450
Politics is about choices,

00:08:44.450 --> 00:08:48.441
and within those choices, politics is about priorities.

00:08:48.441 --> 00:08:50.979
It's about reconciling conflicting preferences

00:08:50.979 --> 00:08:56.396
wherever and whenever possibly based on fact.

00:08:56.396 --> 00:08:58.529
But if the facts themselves are distorted,

00:08:58.529 --> 00:09:02.313
the resolutions are likely only
to create further conflict,

00:09:02.313 --> 00:09:04.478
with all the stresses and strains on society

00:09:04.478 --> 00:09:06.816
that inevitably follow.

00:09:06.816 --> 00:09:08.593
The media have to decide:

00:09:08.593 --> 00:09:11.614
do they see their role as being to inflame

00:09:11.614 --> 00:09:14.129
or to inform?

00:09:14.129 --> 00:09:16.790
Because in the end, it comes down to a combination

00:09:16.790 --> 00:09:19.882
of trust and leadership.

NOTE Paragraph

00:09:19.882 --> 00:09:22.049
Fifty years ago this week,
President John F. Kennedy

00:09:22.049 --> 00:09:23.665
made two epoch-making speeches,

00:09:23.665 --> 00:09:27.223
the first on disarmament
and the second on civil rights.

00:09:27.223 --> 00:09:28.925
The first led almost immediately

00:09:28.925 --> 00:09:30.829
to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,

00:09:30.829 --> 00:09:33.863
and the second led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act,

00:09:33.863 --> 00:09:37.541
both of which represented giant leaps forward.

00:09:37.541 --> 00:09:39.885
Democracy, well-led and well-informed,

00:09:39.885 --> 00:09:42.424
can achieve very great things,

00:09:42.424 --> 00:09:44.205
but there's a precondition.

00:09:44.205 --> 00:09:47.192
We have to trust that those making those decisions

00:09:47.192 --> 00:09:49.783
are acting in the best interest not of themselves

00:09:49.783 --> 00:09:51.623
but of the whole of the people.

00:09:51.623 --> 00:09:54.641
We need factually-based options,

00:09:54.641 --> 00:09:56.085
clearly laid out,

00:09:56.085 --> 00:09:57.325
not those of a few powerful

00:09:57.325 --> 00:09:59.313
and potentially manipulative corporations

00:09:59.313 --> 00:10:01.773
pursuing their own frequently narrow agendas,

00:10:01.773 --> 00:10:04.125
but accurate, unprejudiced information

00:10:04.125 --> 00:10:06.702
with which to make our own judgments.

00:10:06.702 --> 00:10:08.488
If we want to provide decent, fulfilling lives

00:10:08.488 --> 00:10:10.613
for our children and our children's children,

00:10:10.613 --> 00:10:13.700
we need to exercise to the
very greatest degree possible

00:10:13.700 --> 00:10:15.719
that duty of care for a vibrant

00:10:15.719 --> 00:10:18.447
and hopefully a lasting democracy.

00:10:18.447 --> 00:10:20.422
Thank you very much for listening to me.

00:10:20.422 --> 00:10:24.361
(Applause)