For example, if a secret service X is devoted to protecting
a parliamentary democracy from destruction by terrorists it must operate on a
principle of total secrecy and total trust. It cannot possibly perform its role
without keeping secret the way it operates, the information it has
obtained about those wishing to destroy society and the specific measures it
has in place to infiltrate hostile groups, intercept their communications or
destroy their operations. At the same time all the staff and operatives of X
must be able to trust one another – in particular, not to divulge secrets.
But the society which X is trying to protect is a democracy
with a free press. Suppose some journalists become so motivated by the need for
career advancement that they actively seek out transgressions of the internal
rules or overall objectives of X. A cost is incurred for every divulgence,
true or false: enemies of the state learn something about X and its methods, or
the employees suffer diminished trust in each other, which reduces the
effectiveness of operations.
Consider a national medical service Y (e.g. the UK’s
National Health Service) financed by taxation. It needs its staff to be devoted
to the well being of all its patients and to trust each other. If a doctor or
nurse or porter or cleaner or administrator reveals to a journalist some kind
of misdemeanour or bad practice, no matter how rare and unrepresentative, the
organisation’s culture is affected and the public becomes less willing to
sanction the allocation of tax revenue. Moreover, the confidence of patients is
undermined, which in itself can undermine medical treatment.
A multinational company Z has branches in several countries.
A worker in one country airs grievances to a journalist and this causes a
widespread belief that all employees are badly treated, which causes many
previously satisfied employees to feel aggrieved. Potential customers then boycott
products from Z, its profits fall and workers are made redundant and trust
between employers and employees is undermined.
Whenever the member of any organisation divulges something
negative about it there is a human cost over and above the actual problem
reported. And society is in a sense made
up of organisations, so that society as a whole can be badly affected by
over-reporting of negative news about the organisations within it. The negative
effects are particularly marked when problems in one organisation lead to
suspicion that similar organisations have the same problem.
Does this mean one should not report a misdemeanour to the
press? No. But what I think is wrong is that the person reporting it should be
financially rewarded by the media. If the injustice is so important that its divulgence
outweighs in importance the negative impact on the organisation and society in
general, then it should be reported regardless of any financial incentive. In
general, if an incentive is needed it is, I would argue, questionable whether it
should be fed to the public as circulation fodder for a newspaper or to boost
the ratings of a TV news show.
Ultimately, if it
becomes normal for pedlars of bad news to be rewarded it could be that
people start inventing it or distorting events within their employing organisation.
In this situation readers would not trust the stories of bad practices and the
journalists themselves would no longer profit from bad news they had paid for.
The job of a journalist is to proactively unearth news and
report it in a balanced and fair way, not to offer incentives to deliver it and
in so doing damage the society in which he or she operates.
John
Author, the novel 2077 AD (this is being revised and is not currently available).
