When I was working as a Russian linguist during the Cold war, the joke was that most Russians valued Pravda not for its news coverage, but because it served as good toilet paper during the endless shortages of the real thing. This value was enhanced by the prominence in each edition of a large photograph of the current glorious leader set amid his latest interminable speech. It might have been a joke to us, but it was actually true.
I was reminded of this while reading an interview with Helmut Schmidt (again… I can’t shake the man off). Asked about his experience of hunger during the war years, he says (roughly translated):
Yes, God knows I experienced hunger. It was during the war in Russia, but then particularly during the post-war years – the worst being a prisoner of war. The English had nothing to eat – they hadn’t reckoned on such huge numbers of prisoners of war. The only thing they had was loo paper. But, because we got nothing to eat, we didn’t need the paper.
I’m not quite sure how this relates to politics, but I have a feeling it does.
This week we have been subjected to the shameful farce about Lord Ashcroft and the evasion of Tory leaders in addressing legitimate questions from a legitimately concerned public and media. (‘Legitimate’ because Lord Ashcroft stands accused of buying the electorate in marginal seats by pouring money into the Conservative campaigns there.)
Then we had Gordon Brown appearing before the Chilcot Inquiry and dancing delicately between past loyalties and future power. No one will be satisfied with him whatever he says – and it comes as little surprise that the public seems to be voicing a hunger for some truth-telling in the face of an over-abundance of irrelevant or seemingly self-serving verbiage.
I wanted to reach for the tissue while listening to the various responses to the return of Jon Venables to prison, having breached the terms of his release on licence.I remain puzzled as to (a) why the public needs to know what he has now done, (b) how the public will benefit from such knowledge and (c) why we assume that such knowledge will contribute to the common good of society. I hear the scream for blood very clearly and I recognise the voyeurism that we both gorge on and get fed. But, I have heard no reasonable account of why we should know anything other than that the processes of law are being followed in the interests of society and Venables. (I understand the response of his mother, but are we to be consistent and let every victim of every crime shape the future of the criminal involved? Think through the consequences…)
So, I am not sure we are getting fed very well. But we are certainly getting through a lot of paper.
Nick Baines's Blog 
March 6, 2010 at 6:58 am
“I remain puzzled as to (a) why the public needs to know what he has now done, (b) how the public will benefit from such knowledge and (c) why we assume that such knowledge will contribute to the common good of society.”
Nick, wenn Du solche Fragen stellst, hast du den wirklichen Zweck von ‘Pravda’ gut verstanden! Glasnost? Keineswegs! 😉
March 6, 2010 at 9:42 am
While agreeing with most of your post Nick, I do think there is a legitimate public interest issue in the Venables’ case. The two boys convicted of Jamie Bulger’s murder have been heralded by many involved with the justice system as examples of what can be achieved with regard to rehabilitation. Lord Woolf’s decision to reduce their minimum tarriff was partly based on the desire not to damage that rehabilitation by exposing them to a young offender’s institution. Now it seems one of them has raised enough concern to be returned to prison under the terms of his license. This raises issues about the future handling of such cases and public perceptions about justice.
At a time when the prevailing narrative in the media is that the law favours the criminal over against the victim this case is grist to the mill. I think it is a false narrative but the speculation is inevitable. I would want to separate out the legitimate questions about punishment, justice and rehabilitation from the voyeurism of some of the press and public. I agree that we do not need to know details but should not be surprised at the response of many. We should do nothing which prejudices the outcome of any future court case. Part of the problem is that this is an almost unique case and therefore attracts massive attention.
There is an interesting comparison with a case in Norway, the murder of Silje Raedergard (1994) by two 6 year old boys, which was handled completely differently. The boys’ names have never been revealed by the press and they were treated as victims, not killers. In fact they were back in school within a week! I’m thinking of blogging on the comparison between the cases if I get the time later today.
Anyway, thanks again for a breath of common sense amidst the stink of self righteousness and blood lust. I’m off to the toilet with the Daily Mail and I won’t be reading it!
March 7, 2010 at 8:57 am
Isn’t the common theme between the Ashcroft saga, Gordon Brown before Chilcott, and the Vanables story that of ” transparency.
You identify the uncertainty over Ashcroft’s private status but at least there the public ” knew what it didn’t know”. In the Chilcott context I suspect that many do not trust that they know enough about the PM’s role in the history of the Iraq War and think that his careful wording is designed to mislead.
With the Venables story, there is a view that the people ought to have some idea of the risk which the authorities subjected them and their children to.
March 7, 2010 at 4:56 pm
I think Martin makes an important point here, and what it boils down to is that all the time our politicians (or at least some of them) play games with us, and obfuscate (wonderful word that!) it deepens the suspicion and so encourages the sort of culture in which we demand to know what perhaps is being hidden from us.
Of course there are times when things genuinely have to be kept under wraps, but too many politicians appear not to be genuine, and so the hunt for information is on.
And of course it’s good when the church can stand against this sort of culture and ensure 100% genuineness and as much openness as possible in its own affairs.
March 7, 2010 at 9:28 pm
The biggest issue re: Venables, is the affect of dysfunctional families. How many people end up in crime after a terrible upbringing or after having mixed with people who have?
The Bible has much to say about family and community but the spirit of the age has rejected it as out of date.
March 8, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Society is to blame for everything. We are society and thus everything is our fault. But fortunately, some commentators now think that there is no such thing as society. So maybe we won’t have any more problems?
There are lots of things we don’t need to know that we know far too much about. And many things that we probably ought to know but which people are determined to keep us from finding out about.
The need not to know, or to know, so often seems to turn on whether we are curious about something. But curiousity is no way to gauge an entitlement to know. Because some of us are more curious than others, and some have vested interests which depend on stimulating curiousity (the ‘media’)or stifling it (all of us, at times).
Anyway, it’s a sticky mess whichever way you look at it, so maybe a trip to the bog to contemplate it in greater depth is called for. Where is my Church Times?