The Guardian Of Truth? by Les May

YESTERDAY, 2 May, the Filipino journalist Maria Ressa was presented with the World Press Freedom Prize by UNESCO in recognition of her fight for free speech in the Philippines where she has been the target of online attacks and judicial processes in which the law and law enforcement have been turned against journalists, human rights activists, and ordinary citizens under President Rodrigo Duterte.

In her acceptance speech she said "Equally dangerous and insidious (is the) virus of lies unleashed in our information ecosystem, infecting real people, who become impervious to facts… It changes the way they look at the world. They become angrier, more isolated. They distrust everything. In this environment, the dictator wins, crumbling our democracies from within."

This is an apocalyptic scenario of our political future: a world where as she puts it ‘power and money rule’. But it’s not just in the political sphere that people are susceptible to becoming impervious to facts as they navigate the information ecosystem. For some people the problem is ‘big tech’, platforms like Facebook, Twitter and the rest of social media, and the answer is for governments to regulate it. This view ignores the experience in the Philippines that it is the government that is using the law to determine what is acceptable as ‘facts’.

Nor is it just with social media that the problems reside. Mainstream outlets have exploited the knowledge that most people do not check what is fact and what is opinion. Pointing out that just because someone says something is true does not make it so, is unwelcome news both to some people in the media and to many readers and viewers. Facts become just what someone wants to believe and woe betide anyone who disagrees. I don’t take at face value what Meghan Markle had to say in her televised interview. I don’t matter, but Piers Morgan paid the price for his dissent.

The Guardian, once a byword for rectitude and fairness, has no qualms about printing a story about the actor Noel Clarke knowing that the likely outcome will be that he will never be able to clear his name and will probably never be able to work as an actor again. I have no idea about whether whether the allegations made are true or false, and importantly, nor does the person who wrote it or the editor who chose to include it in the paper. The editor could, and in my view should, have declined to publish any allegations which had not been reported to the police by the complainants.

By last Saturday The Independent, another supposedly quality paper, was running a story by Victoria Richards which began ‘I have never met Noel Clarke, but I have met men who have behaved in the way Clarke is accused of behaving’. Again, if what she says in this piece is true, why did she not report it to the police? Why should I believe her just because she says it?

A few days ago the Victims Commissioner said ‘Far too few rape cases are resulting in a charge and hundreds of complainants annually are being denied justice.’ But where is the justice for anyone, accuser or accused, in the Noel Clarke story? Where in the response of ITV and Sky is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? The question ceases to be whether the accused will get a fair trial, it becomes whether s/he will get a trial at all.

Maria Ressa spoke of a ‘virus of lies’; so how do we vaccinate ourselves against it? The first thing is to recognise that it is not just a problem of ‘Big Tech’. Supposedly more respectable, media outlets try to shape our perception of events by what they decide is a story and how they slant it.

The second thing is to recognise that it is a problem we have to solve for ourselves and our families, rather than relying on a government imposed solution, which itself may become dangerous to free thought and expression. As Maria Ressa put it "fight and win your individual battle for integrity". Don’t buy your teenage daughter an expensive smartphone and then complain when something bad happens to her.

Scepticism about the truth of what you see, what you read and what you are told if you venture into what Ressa calls the ‘information ecosystem’ has to be the order of the day. There is a lot of space between distrusting everything and watching the dictators win because you no longer know what is true and what is false, and filtering out (some of) the lies and manipulation by questioning everything.

We can ask: Who is saying this? How reliable have they been in the past? Is there any way of independently verifying their account? Who gains from this version of events? Are they trying to pass off assertions as facts? These things require some effort on our part. If we are not prepared to make it there is one thing we can all do; don’t pass on stories unless you are certain they are true. Better still; don’t gossip!

************************************************************

Noel Clarke: ITV drops drama Viewpoint finale after allegations

TODAY ITV has decided to pull the final episode of the drama Viewpoint after allegations of sexual harassment were made against its star, Noel Clarke.

The broadcaster said it was 'no longer appropriate to broadcast the final episode' on Friday as planned.

Sky has also "halted" its work with Clarke, including on the fourth series of crime drama Bulletproof.

The Kidulthood and Doctor Who star, 45, has said he "vehemently" denies "any sexual misconduct or wrongdoing".

In a statement on Thursday, he said he intended to "defend myself against these false allegations".

The Guardian newspaper reported allegations from 20 women, all of whom knew Clarke in a professional capacity, on Thursday.

On Friday, ITV said it had "a zero tolerance policy to bullying, harassment and victimisation".

"We strongly believe that everyone deserves to work in a supportive and safe environment," it added.

"In light of the very serious nature of the allegations against Noel Clarke raised by 20 women in the Guardian's report, ITV has decided it is no longer appropriate to broadcast the final episode of the drama Viewpoint on ITV main channel this evening."

However, the finale will be available on its streaming service ITV Hub from Friday night for a limited time "for any viewers who wish to seek it out, and watch its conclusion".

Clarke played a surveillance detective in the show, which has been on ITV every evening this week. It was watched by 3.5 million people on Thursday.

He is also known for his role in Bulletproof, which Sky commissioned for a fourth series in January.

But following the allegations, Sky said: "Effective immediately, we have halted Noel Clarke's involvement in any future Sky productions."

The broadcaster said it had not received any reports of sexual misconduct or harassment during or since the show's production. "Sky stands against all forms of sexual harassment and bullying and takes any allegations of this nature extremely seriously," it added.

Bulletproof's production company Vertigo Films also said: "Effective immediately, Noel Clarke is removed from any Vertigo Films production."

A spokesperson for the company said it had "launched an urgent investigation to find out if any [alleged incidents] apply to any Vertigo Films productions", but that "no issues have been flagged to us".

Fellow Bulletproof actor Ashley Walters responded to the allegations against his co-star by saying he was "in shock and deeply saddened by what I have heard on a multitude of levels".

He said he "could never condone behaviour of this nature" and while "Noel has been a friend and a colleague for several years, I cannot stand by and ignore these allegations".

He added: "Sexual harassment, abuse and bullying have no place in our industry." In his statement on Thursday, Clarke added: "In a 20-year career, I have put inclusivity and diversity at the forefront of my work and never had a complaint made against me. "If anyone who has worked with me has ever felt uncomfortable or disrespected, I sincerely apologise."

********************************************************