It has certainly been a tumultuous couple of weeks in the media, with huge attention focussing on how misinformation, rumour and a drip-drip-drip of xenophobic rhetoric may have sparked the appalling scenes across Britain last week, writes Simon Burch.
And it is this approach which now seems to be driving the criminal convictions and custodial sentences that people are receiving for posting hateful messages online.
All of this would suggest that it is the media which shapes public opinion, and this in turn opens up a whole new can of worms when it comes to free speech and what people should, and should not, be able to say via the media.
At the same time, a rush of people are now leaving (or saying they’re leaving) Twitter/X, in protest at owner Elon Musk’s insistence on actually allowing free speech, giving a platform to people whose beliefs are beyond the pale and whose contributions are then given a huge boost through the algorithms.
There will be many journalist old-timers who will currently be settling back in their comfy armchairs, saying that everyone who ever criticised what they’re now calling the “legacy media” – the traditional newspapers and mainstream broadcasters – for being biased or censorious is reaping what free speech advocates wanted to sow.
And I admit that I am one of them.
While it’s true that the traditional media isn’t perfect and there are vested interests, in my opinion a media which applies some ground rules to public discourse is better than the free-for-all which seems to characterise today’s social media.
One of the abiding memories of anyone who ever worked on a newspaper, certainly in the pre-internet days, was having to go to the front office to talk to someone who’d just popped in wanting to share a story.
While they might have said something that would later become a story, in many cases they were often lonely or deluded people who wanted to vent their spleen about a neighbour or share their paranoid views of the world.
Or they were simply racist or anarchists with too much to say and too much time on their hands.
With experience, you could tell within a minute whether they had a good story or would require the “thank you, but no” response, as we upheld the paper’s duty to ensure its content was truthful, not libellous and socially responsible.
Was this, looking back, censorship? Maybe. I can’t deny our personal and professional biases would have meant we applied judgements on people and perhaps denied them the space to have their say because they didn’t appear to fit our agenda.
And there is no doubt that social media has made it easier for diverse voices who would have struggled to get to a newspaper office, or been able to articulate themselves properly if they phoned up – if they had the courage to do so – to have their say.
It was far from perfect, but, returning to Twitter/X, last week’s events should be a lesson to the public and the social media about what happens when everyone is given the right to “free speech”.
The problem with free speech is for it to be for truly free everyone, no matter who they are, should benefit from it. As soon as you limit that right, it no longer becomes free speech.
So for a harmonious media, the only free speech people should be able to enjoy is when they use their mouth to speak or actually write something down.
If they require a third-party platform – like the TV or radio or social media – to get their message across, then they have to abide by their rules.
Because rules are what keep the media in business.
The media knows which side its bread is buttered: it exists to serve its readers or viewers. They in turn are happy to listen to the stories and messages and happy to be influenced, whether unthinkingly or not.
Any media is a business and the message is the product. Just as any successful business needs to know about its customers, the media needs to know what its consumers want and how the give it to them, or they’ll just switch off.
I don’t believe people, in their heart of hearts, want to go online and witness “free speech”. I think they’re happy with what can only be an imperfect democracy, because, while it doesn’t always get things right, it’s enjoyable and gives them what they want to see – middle-of-the-road, sometimes spicy, but generally untroubling, content.
If Elon Musk continues to champion such a no-holds-barred free-speech platform then he will give the most space to those who shout the loudest, who have to shout, because it’s the only way they will get people to hear them out.
By doing that, he will alienate the majority who simply want to enjoy themselves without scrolling through content more suited to the Nuremberg Rally.
Yes, in the short term, this will generate activity and comments and clicks, but over the long term the reasonable majority will have their say by deserting his platform and seeking an alternative.
This will reduce his engagement figures, which will in turn affect X’s attractiveness to advertisers. And, eventually, X will either exist on the fringes of the media, it will simply go out of business, or it will have to change its ways.
By this I mean it will have to vet its own content, either voluntarily or through legislation which has surely moved ever-closer – following the legacy media in “limiting” free speech to ensure society doesn’t descend into lawlessness and disorder.
