The fight for truth is on
Opinion
Without a system of knowledge covering generally accepted truths, we will live in a world where decisions are not based on evidence but on the corrupt and vested interests of a few. High-quality journalism has never been more vital.
When I first saw the new BBC campaign, which finishes with the line “The fight for truth is on”, I felt relief.
Here was a brand with the credibility, resources and heritage to make such an assertion — and be believed. That stories were checked for veracity and based on hard evidence was something we used to take for granted.
However, there has been a disturbing shift of late in the dominance of perception over facts and a lack of distinction between opinions and hard news.
Independent media’s role in democracy
Our information ecosystem is being corrupted under our noses as the incentive to be honest has been greatly reduced.
Polarisation makes more money and poor journalism is financially rewarded and often achieves the best distribution too.
Lies have always been cheap and it would seem that the consequences of being exposed are easily paid by the wealthy people and vested interests who peddle them. People who want to influence governments, reduce regulation and impact the geopolitical landscape for their own benefit are flooding us with conspiracy theories and disinformation.
The ability of an independent media to challenge power is a vital part of a functioning democracy. And so the decline of trust in our news media is having real-world impact on the very existence of democracies. Lies and fear are rapidly spread through social media and foreign players are becoming bolder in their blatant attempts to purchase votes and corrupt our electoral processes.
Recently, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post decided not to endorse a candidate for president in the US election. While such endorsement would not in itself be a deciding factor, it’s obvious that this timidity is not good for democracy.
It is additionally notable as both have a tradition of issuing editorial endorsements and also now have billionaire owners who could face retaliation in case of a Donald Trump presidency.
The great newspapers of the world just lost a couple of members
Shift towards autocracies
This year, I was invited to the Trust Conference in London. Convened every year by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, its mission is to strengthen free, fair and informed societies.
Professor Staffan Lindberg of the V-Dem Institute presented a startling analysis of the rapid decline of democracies in the world over the last 20 years. While 50% of the world’s population lived in democracies in 2003, by 2023 that number had declined to 29%. Or put another way: 71% of the world’s population is now living under an autocracy.
V-Dem defines the sign of a democracy becoming toxic as when incumbent governments describe their opponents as “enemies of the nation” and the law is weaponised to attack both journalists and the lawyers who try to defend them.
Speaker after speaker from around the world gave testimony to how free speech is being used to silence. Lawsuits are also being used to silence. Even the professional associations of the legal sector are being used to disbar lawyers from practising at all. Anti-state and anti-terrorism laws are used to arrest and detain journalists.
The term “lawfare” has emerged to describe strategic litigation, whereby opponents are oppressed and intimidated through expensive and lengthy legal proceedings. The systematic pursuit of multiple arbitrary cases, which become more and more difficult to defend as lawyers are themselves intimidated and harassed, has become part of the dictator’s handbook. And, unfortunately, the UK is not immune to this kind of activity.
Advertising adjacent to quality news content is brand-safe regardless of topic
Restricting ESG
I was startled to discover the yawning gap that is opening up between Europe and the US with respect to responsible business practices. I was unaware that 18 US states are currently passing laws to restrict the use of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in making investment decisions.
Proponents of these laws claim ESG threatens investment returns and uses economic power to implement business standards beyond those required by law. An alliance of Republican governors has called the implementation of ESG practices “a direct threat to the American economy, individual economic freedom and our way of life”.
By blocking the use of ESG in investment decisions at the state and local level, they insist that only financial factors are considered to maximise the return on investment for pension funds and other investors. Bluntly, this favours fossil fuel companies that continue to provide large returns on investment while destroying the future of the Earth. This move to make responsible investing a criminal offence is astonishing.
Link between democracy and responsible business
In my mind, there is a strong link between the democratic idea of “one person, one vote”, access to facts and truthful journalism, and responsible business practices.
In a democracy, power is vested in citizens who can hire and fire their governments through the election process. In an autocracy, one person holds absolute power and cannot easily be removed. By the same token, responsible businesses are not only driven by profit but seek to maximise their positive impact on society and the environment.
Honesty and transparency are a prerequisite to such conscious capitalism. ESG was designed to influence the way in which companies made investment decisions and conducted their businesses by taking into account all stakeholders, not just shareholders, including the planet — effectively treating it as if it has a vote too.
6 in 10 Brits say brands should stop funding social platforms spreading misinformation
Progressive brands going quiet
The backlash against ESG has had a chilling effect on progressive brands in the US.
Described as “impact hushing”, many businesses have gone silent on their impact investments and other responsible business activities rather than attract the ire of conservative influencers like Robby Starbuck.
Starbuck is riding a wave of right-wing hostility to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes and corporate advocacy on issues like climate change and LGBTQIA+ rights, and has targeted brands such as Harley-Davidson, Ford, Coors and John Deere. By selecting brands known to have conservative consumers and whose initiatives on some of these issues were implemented only in recent years, Starbuck has found they have been unable to resist the pressure and have agreed to roll back on their DEI activities.
Fighting for the truth
The fight for the truth is certainly on — the truth about climate change, human rights violations and science.
Without a system of knowledge covering generally accepted truths, we will live in a world of fantasy where decisions are not based on evidence but on the corrupt and vested interests of a few.
To have a public-service broadcaster in the BBC, which is designed to be independent of the state, has never been more important. In a world where people are looking around for information they can trust, high-quality journalism has never been more vital.
When responsible and progressive brands advertise on quality media, they will help protect all of us from the backlash of strong and backward-looking forces. All eyes are now on the outcome of the US election in this existential battle for truthfulness and real-world political discourse.
Jan Gooding is one of the UK’s best-known brand marketers, having worked with Aviva, BT, British Gas, Diageo and Unilever. She is now an executive coach and is also chair of Pamco and Utopia. She writes for The Media Leader each month.
