Salocin

Cashier tells confused bank robber he's at the wrong cashier.

For the last four years, I have been privileged to attend Forum 21, an inspiring meeting of minds that occurs annually in France. Bringing together a varied and eclectic mixture of diplomats, businessmen, writers, aid workers, politicians and scientists, this small (never more than 200) group of individuals meet annually to share ideas, visions of the world and perspectives on global issues in almost every field.

This years’ agenda was as varied as ever, and covered matters as diverse as advances and changes in medicine (both scientific and politoeconomic), the future of Russia, recent developments, initiatives and new hope in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, tributes to Einstein, aspects of mathematics, and the relationship of math to art (including an eye-opening perspective on the work of Jackson Pollock), aid and economic development, and a view of the major economic and geopolitical challenges for the coming 20 years.

What sets this event apart is the combined expertise of the participants (some of whom are global authorities in their fields), the breadth of issues raised and the attitude that surrounds the discussion. Having been to business school, I have seen aggressive questioning taken to extremes and in the classrooms of the big MBA schools, the questions all too often have as their goal the demonstration of intelligence and knowledge on the part of the questioner. Despite the august individuals in the room, this hardly ever happens in Forum 21. Listening is the norm, questions leverage the intelligence and knowledge of the panellists rather than the ego of the inquisitor, and a genuine respect for individuals and their opinions runs so deep that to mention it feels like stating the obvious.

The rules of the conference prohibit the participants from describing the discussions that happen within unless permission is first obtained from the participants themselves, and I have no desire to go into the detail of the discussions because I cannot do justice to the presentation skills, experience or eloquence of the individuals concerned. The context of the Forum, specifically the sense that we are all equals and everyone has something to contribute, is crucial to the interactions, and I think republishing words verbatim (were it even permitted) would fail to transmit the essential qualities of the discussions. You had to be there.

It is vastly reassuring to see thought leaders and intellectuals, politicians and opinion-makers come together and discuss the problems in the world with such deep understanding, such a willingness to grow that understanding further, and an ability to convey their insight to others. In so constructive a climate, one can almost believe that the aspirational solutions and situations that are described at this event and are so appealing in theory may one day be reality.

A BBC article I read today got me thinking about privacy and our lack of it. This is a subject I've always been fairly happy to get into an argument about, and I usually find myself on whichever side of the argument everyone else is not. While I'm all for the freedom of the press, they so often go to far that I get upset and annoyed at what appears to be a gross breach of privacy. The question then becomes, which would you rather? A strangled press or tittle-tattle society that borders on the perversely voyeuristic. I think what bothers me the most is how judgemental people will be of others when they have no right to be.

One thing to bear in mind is that, in every aspect except that of policymaking, this is about money. The papers who publish the lurid details of some public figure's extra-marital dalliances aren't doing it for the greater good. That's their defense when accused, but it's not their motive for publishing the information in the first place.

Their motive is sales.

We could quite easily live without the News of the World showing us Jennifer Lopez and her latest beau, or some politician and his girlfriend. But once it's there, on paper, for 50p, there's some sick part of the human psyche that just - compulsively - wants to read it. See it. Feel superior, or envious. Pass judgement.

The press is usually self-regulating, because anything else would be akin to an encroachment of the freedom of the press, but then there's that phrase again. The freedom of the press. What exactly is it that we value about this freedom?

Does our democracy hang on it? Not exactly, it's not a prerequisite, but democracy is more easily threatened in it's absence. This makes a free press a good thing.

In fact, the press has always been free, and it's not the papers that have changed, but the people who read them. The tasteless, crass and demeaning things drawn (by hook, by crook, and more often than not by subterfuge) from the lives of the rich, famous or otherwise unfortunately visible, and displayed like hunting trophies on the covers of the toilet paper that passes for the tabloid press, are only there because so many people slobber greedily over the images and stories they contain.

In a perfect example of the free market acting freely, the press has adapted to produce the product demanded by that demographic which represents the most valuable market. I can't call them the lower or lower-middle classes, because that's not what they are anymore. Were in a 'classless society' now. Totally classless - couldn't have put it better myself.

Anyone who's anyone has to be very careful these days. Telephoto lenses, bugging devices, kiss-and-tell girls and dozens of other rag-enriching phenomena are everywhere, and - be you a footballer or a diplomat, an actor or married to one - your constant assumption has to be that someone is watching, recording, setting you up and ready to make a dime off anything you say that doesn't follow the script.

We have notions like 'the freedom of the press' which lead to rules and legally protected behaviours because they preserve society the way we want it, but while these rules may have helped turn society into something nice, their prolonged existence now sours what they helped to create. Freedom and democracy have decadent voyeurism growing like a fungus all over them. I like our freedom, I like democracy, but I don't want to live in a society where everyone who's anyone has to be paranoid all the time because so many people are trying to catch them screwing up on film - the consequences of our mistakes should concern only ourselves and those directly affected, not the nameless faceless masses who read the papers.

My only exception is for the Beckhams and those like them. If you make your living out of leveraging the press, then you've made your pact and the devil gets your soul, because you've chosen to become a product. That's their choice - and a way of life some people might choose. If it satisfies some voyeuristic appetite among us common mortals, so much the better.

The public has a right to know - but to know what? The pap we're fed in the popular press is not what these rights were created for - and we're still not getting all the facts that do matter - Manipulative articles following unclear political agendas are rife, and we notice nothing because we're too busy ogling a grainy thong that may or may not belong to the person whose name is printed above it.

The solution would be for the general public to stop buying the paper with the picture of the thong, but given the choice, the majority of the populations of these great countries with free press and democratic rights would rather look at soft porn and scandals than get any real news. I'm not holding out much hope for improvement.

Enough grumbling. I'm going to bed.