David Puttnam: What happens when the media's priority is profit?

譯者: William Choi 審譯者: Rachel Lu

I'd like to start, if I may,

如果可以的話，

with the story of the Paisley snail.

我想從「佩斯利蝸牛」的故事 開始說起。

On the evening of the 26th of August, 1928,

1928 年 8 月 26 日晚，

May Donoghue took a train from Glasgow

梅唐納修從格拉斯哥 坐火車來到佩斯利鎮，

to the town of Paisley, seven miles east of the city,

鎮位於城市東邊， 離市中心七英里遠，

and there at the Wellmeadow Café,

她在威爾梅朵咖啡館裡，

she had a Scots ice cream float,

喝了一杯蘇格蘭冰淇淋蘇打，

a mix of ice cream and ginger beer

那是由冰淇淋和薑汁啤酒混合製成

bought for her by a friend.

是她的一位朋友給她買的。

The ginger beer came in a brown, opaque bottle

薑汁啤酒裝在一個棕色不透明的杯子裡

labeled "D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley."

杯子上標著 「佩斯利鎮格蘭巷，D．史帝文森」

She drank some of the ice cream float,

她喝了一點冰淇淋蘇打

but as the remaining ginger beer was poured

但是當她把剩下的薑汁啤酒

into her tumbler,

倒進酒杯時

a decomposed snail

一隻腐死蝸牛

floated to the surface of her glass.

浮在水面

Three days later, she was admitted

三天之後，

to the Glasgow Royal Infirmary

她被送進格拉斯哥皇家醫院

and diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis

被診斷為嚴重的腸胃炎

and shock.

以及休克。

The case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson that followed

接著的唐納修訴史帝文森案

set a very important legal precedent:

立下了一個非常重要的先例：

Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer,

判決指出薑汁啤酒製造商史帝文森

was held to have a clear duty of care

對梅唐納修負有

towards May Donoghue,

明確的謹慎責任

even though there was no contract between them,

儘管他們之間沒有合同

and, indeed, she hadn't even bought the drink.

甚至不是她去買啤酒

One of the judges, Lord Atkin, described it like this:

其中一個法官阿特金勳爵說：

You must take care to avoid acts or omissions

在你可合理地預見損害到他人時，

which you can reasonably foresee

就必須遵從謹慎的法律責任，

would be likely to injure your neighbor.

避免作出一些行為或疏忽行為。

Indeed, one wonders that without a duty of care,

我們甚至想知道 假如沒有謹慎責任的情況下

how many people would have had to suffer

在史帝文森最終倒閉前，

from gastroenteritis before Stevenson eventually went out of business.

還有多少人飽受腸胃炎之苦。

Now please hang on to that Paisley snail story,

現在請記住佩斯利蝸牛的故事，

because it's an important principle.

因為這是一個十分重要的原則。

Last year, the Hansard Society, a nonpartisan charity

去年，一個無黨派慈善機構 名為漢薩德學會，

which seeks to strengthen parliamentary democracy

試圖鞏固議會民主， 鼓勵公眾

and encourage greater public involvement in politics

更多介入政治發表看法 進而影響決策

published, alongside their annual audit

出版年度政治參與度審計報告，

of political engagement, an additional section

又發表了一個額外章節

devoted entirely to politics and the media.

整個都是跟政治和媒體有關。

Here are a couple of rather depressing observations

在調查當中

from that survey.

有一些讓人頗為失望的觀察報告。

Tabloid newspapers do not appear

小報看來好像沒有

to advance the political citizenship of their readers,

增進讀者的政治公民權

relative even to those

甚至和完全不讀報的人相比

who read no newspapers whatsoever.

也沒有。

Tabloid-only readers are twice as likely to agree

只讀小報的讀者較易同意

with a negative view of politics

政治的負面觀點，

than readers of no newspapers.

比不讀報的高兩倍。

They're not just less politically engaged.

他們不僅對政治參與態度更消極

They are consuming media that reinforces

通過消費媒體

their negative evaluation of politics,

反而對政治增加負面評價

thereby contributing to a fatalistic and cynical

因此對民主和它們當中的角色

attitude to democracy and their own role within it.

持宿命和憤世嫉俗的態度。

Little wonder that the report concluded that

無怪乎，報告總結說

in this respect, the press, particularly the tabloids,

在這方面，媒體尤其是小報

appear not to be living up to the importance

看來好像沒有在民主中

of their role in our democracy.

起到應有的重要作用。

Now I doubt if anyone in this room would seriously

現在我不確實這房間裡

challenge that view.

有沒有人認真挑戰那個觀點。

But if Hansard are right, and they usually are,

但是如果漢薩德學會是對的， 而他們通常都是對的，

then we've got a very serious problem on our hands,

那麼在我們手裡就有一個嚴重的問題

and it's one that I'd like to spend the next 10 minutes

我想在接下來的 10 分鐘

focusing upon.

集中討論。

Since the Paisley snail,

自從佩斯利蝸牛後

and especially over the past decade or so,

尤其是過去十多年

a great deal of thinking has been developed

很多人都在思考

around the notion of a duty of care

謹慎責任這個概念

as it relates to a number of aspects of civil society.

因為它和公民社會各方面也多有相關

Generally a duty of care arises when one individual

謹慎責任的形成常見於以下情況

or a group of individuals undertakes an activity

一個人或群眾進行一項活動時

which has the potential to cause harm to another,

有可能會對他人造成傷害

either physically, mentally or economically.

無論身體上、精神上的傷害 或經濟上的損失

This is principally focused on obvious areas,

主要集中在顯而易見的領域

such as our empathetic response to children and young people,

例如我們對兒童和年輕人、

to our service personnel, and to the elderly and infirm.

對服務員、對老年 或體弱者的同理心反應。

It is seldom, if ever, extended to equally important arguments

同樣重要的論點很難得或從來不會

around the fragility of our present system of government,

擴展到政府現行制度弱點的議題

to the notion that honesty, accuracy and impartiality

在建立和嵌入充分知情的、

are fundamental to the process of building

民眾參與的民主過程中

and embedding an informed,

誠實、精確和公正無私

participatory democracy.

是不可或缺的。

And the more you think about it,

越深思這件事

the stranger that is.

這件事就越奇怪。

A couple of years ago, I had the pleasure

幾年前，我有幸

of opening a brand new school

參與英國東北部一間新學校的

in the northeast of England.

開幕典禮

It had been renamed by its pupils as Academy 360.

學生們把它重新命名為「學院 360 」

As I walked through their impressive,

當我走過

glass-covered atrium,

令人印象深刻的玻璃吊頂中庭時

in front of me, emblazoned on the wall

在我面前，牆上

in letters of fire

以火焰字體刻著

was Marcus Aurelius's famous injunction:

馬可．奧里略的名言

If it's not true, don't say it;

不真實的話不必說；

if it's not right, don't do it.

不對的事不用做

The head teacher saw me staring at it,

校長看到我盯著這句話

and he said, "Oh, that's our school motto."

就說：「噢，那是我們學校的校訓。」

On the train back to London,

在回倫敦的火車上

I couldn't get it out of my mind.

這句話一直在我的腦海裡揮之不去

I kept thinking, can it really have taken us

我一直想，難道我們真的

over 2,000 years to come to terms

需要二千多年的時間

with that simple notion

才意識到這個簡單的概念

as being our minimum expectation of each other?

我們真的符合彼此的最低預期嗎？

Isn't it time that we develop this concept

難道現在不正是讓我們

of a duty of care

發展出謹慎責任這個概念

and extended it to include a care

並把它延伸出去，包括

for our shared but increasingly endangered democratic values?

關注於現時共享的 但逐漸受到威脅的民主價值？

After all, the absence of a duty of care

畢竟，在很多行業裡

within many professions

缺乏謹慎責任

can all too easily amount to accusations of negligence,

就很容易被指控為疏忽

and that being the case, can we be really comfortable with the thought

既然如此，我們事實上

that we're in effect being negligent

在社會的健康發展

in respect of the health of our own societies

及其必要支持的價值觀方面有所疏忽

and the values that necessarily underpin them?

我們真的能夠接受這想法嗎？

Could anyone honestly suggest, on the evidence,

面對證據，有誰能誠實的說，

that the same media which Hansard so roundly condemned

漢薩德學會全面譴責的同一類媒體

have taken sufficient care to avoid behaving

負起足夠責任去避免作出某些行為，

in ways which they could reasonably have foreseen

而他們可合理地預見

would be likely to undermine or even damage

這些行為可會削弱甚至毀壞

our inherently fragile democratic settlement.

我們內在還很脆弱的民主。

Now there will be those who will argue

現在有些人會爭辯

that this could all too easily drift into a form

這些太容易偏轉成

of censorship, albeit self-censorship,

審查制度，儘管是自我審查

but I don't buy that argument.

但我不接受那個論點。

It has to be possible

我們一定可以

to balance freedom of expression

在言論自由和

with wider moral and social responsibilities.

更廣泛的道德和社會責任之間找到平衡

Let me explain why by taking the example

我想用我身為一個電影製作人

from my own career as a filmmaker.

作一個簡單實例來說明原因。

Throughout that career, I never accepted

在我職業生涯中，我從來都不接受

that a filmmaker should set about putting

電影製作人該把作品

their own work outside or above what he or she

和自己對生活、家庭

believed to be a decent set of values

以及我們對社會未來

for their own life, their own family,

的想法和價值觀

and the future of the society in which we all live.

分隔開。

I'd go further.

讓我進一步說明

A responsible filmmaker should never devalue their work

一個負責的電影製作人 從來不該將自己作品的價值觀

to a point at which it becomes less than true

降低到不能符合

to the world they themselves wish to inhabit.

自己對這個世界的期望

As I see it, filmmakers, journalists, even bloggers

在我看來，電影製作人， 記者，甚至部落格作家

are all required to face up to the social expectations

都需面對社會的期望

that come with combining the intrinsic power of their medium

將媒體內蘊的力量

with their well-honed professional skills.

和他們優秀的職業技能結合起來

Obviously this is not a mandated duty,

當然這不是一個強制的責任

but for the gifted filmmaker and the responsible journalist

但對於優秀的電影製作人， 負責任的記者

or even blogger, it strikes me as being utterly inescapable.

甚至部落格作家， 我認為是完全無法逃避的責任。

We should always remember that our notion

我們應該牢記

of individual freedom and its partner, creative freedom,

個人自由，以其伴隨的創作自由

is comparatively new

在西方思想史上

in the history of Western ideas,

是相對很新的概念

and for that reason, it's often undervalued

因此，它通常被低估

and can be very quickly undermined.

也很容易被削弱

It's a prize easily lost,

這是個很容易失去的禮物

and once lost, once surrendered,

一旦丟失，一旦屈服

it can prove very, very hard to reclaim.

就很難再拿回來了

And its first line of defense

而對它首要的保護

has to be our own standards,

就是我們自己的標準

not those enforced on us by a censor or legislation,

不是由審查或者通過立法 強加給我們的標準

our own standards and our own integrity.

而是我們自己的標準 和自己的道德準則

Our integrity as we deal with those

道德準則是指我們如何處理

with whom we work

選擇和誰一起工作

and our own standards as we operate within society.

以及我們在社會裡採用的標準

And these standards of ours

而我們這些標準

need to be all of a piece with a sustainable social agenda.

需要統一及可持續的社會進程

They're part of a collective responsibility,

他們屬於共同責任的一部份

the responsibility of the artist or the journalist

這責任要求藝術家或記者

to deal with the world as it really is,

面對世界時如同真實的一樣

and this, in turn, must go hand in hand

而這轉過來，也必須和

with the responsibility of those governing society

統治機構的責任聯繫起來

to also face up to that world,

他們也需要面對真實的世界，

and not to be tempted to misappropriate

不應當被利用濫用職權

the causes of its ills.

引起社會弊端的漏洞

Yet, as has become strikingly clear

但是，在過去幾年中

over the last couple of years,

越來越驚人地清楚的是

such responsibility has to a very great extent

這些責任在非常大的程度上

been abrogated by large sections of the media.

被大部份媒體拋棄了。

And as a consequence, across the Western world,

作為結果，在西方社會里

the over-simplistic policies of the parties of protest

反對黨過分簡化的政策

and their appeal to a largely disillusioned,

他們主要吸引對社會不抱期望

older demographic,

年紀很大的群眾

along with the apathy and obsession with the trivial

冷漠而固執

that typifies at least some of the young,

至少對部份年輕人抱有偏見

taken together, these and other similarly

所有的這些

contemporary aberrations

當代的心理失常現象

are threatening to squeeze the life

正威脅

out of active, informed debate and engagement,

使積極的、信息通暢的辯論和參與失去活力

and I stress active.

我強調是積極的

The most ardent of libertarians might argue

最激烈的自由主義者可能會爭辯說

that Donoghue v. Stevenson should have been thrown out of court

唐納修訴史帝文森的案子不應被受理

and that Stevenson would eventually have gone out of business

只要史帝文森繼續賣有蝸牛的薑汁啤酒，

if he'd continued to sell ginger beer with snails in it.

他最終會破產的

But most of us, I think, accept some small role

但我覺得，我們中的大部份人還是接受

for the state to enforce a duty of care,

國家採取一些行動來加強謹慎責任的

and the key word here is reasonable.

這裡的關鍵是合理的

Judges must ask, did they take reasonable care

法官們必須問的問題是， 他們有沒有採取合理的關照

and could they have reasonably foreseen

以及他們是否能夠合理預測到

the consequences of their actions?

行為的後果？

Far from signifying overbearing state power,

不僅沒有顯示過強的政府力量

it's that small common sense test of reasonableness

這是一個對合理性的常識小測試

that I'd like us to apply to those in the media

我希望我們能將這個測試應用於媒體上

who, after all, set the tone and the content

畢竟，媒體奠定了我們民主的

for much of our democratic discourse.

大部份基調和內容。

Democracy, in order to work, requires that

爲了讓民主發揮作用，

reasonable men and women take the time to understand and debate

需要理性的民眾花時間理解並爭論

difficult, sometimes complex issues,

那些困難而且有時很複雜的事務

and they do so in an atmosphere which strives

他們需要在一個這樣的氛圍中進行：

for the type of understanding that leads to,

這個環境下大家的理解是朝著

if not agreement, then at least a productive

哪怕不是完全同意，但至少能

and workable compromise.

達成一種有效又能執行的妥協。

Politics is about choices,

政治是選擇

and within those choices, politics is about priorities.

在這些選擇裡面，政治講的是優先權

It's about reconciling conflicting preferences

政治是無論何時何地，只要有可能

wherever and whenever possibly based on fact.

就在事實基礎上斡旋各種有衝突的選擇

But if the facts themselves are distorted,

但是如果事實本身就是扭曲的

the resolutions are likely only to create further conflict,

解決方案很可能只能產生更多的矛盾

with all the stresses and strains on society

而社會上的壓力和衝突

that inevitably follow.

就不可避免的會跟著產生

The media have to decide:

媒體需要決定：

Do they see their role as being to inflame

他們視自己的角色是點燃衝突的人

or to inform?

還是提供信息的人

Because in the end, it comes down to a combination

因為到了最後，歸根結底是

of trust and leadership.

信任和領導力的結合。

Fifty years ago this week, President John F. Kennedy

五十年前的這一週，約翰．甘迺迪總統

made two epoch-making speeches,

作了兩個名留青史的演講

the first on disarmament and the second on civil rights.

第一個關於裁軍 第二個關於人權

The first led almost immediately

第一個演講幾乎立刻導致

to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,

《禁止核試驗條約》的誕生

and the second led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act,

第二個演講帶來了 1964 年的人權法案

both of which represented giant leaps forward.

這兩件事情都代表著巨大的進步

Democracy, well-led and well-informed,

民主，在良好領導和充分的信息溝通下

can achieve very great things,

能夠達成偉大的成就

but there's a precondition.

但是這是有前提的

We have to trust that those making those decisions

我們必須信任那些做決定的人

are acting in the best interest not of themselves

是基於全人類的最大利益而非個人私利

but of the whole of the people.

的前提下行動

We need factually-based options,

我們需要基於事實的選項

clearly laid out,

被清楚地列出來

not those of a few powerful

而非少數幾個很有權力

and potentially manipulative corporations

而且可能會操縱事實的機構

pursuing their own frequently narrow agendas,

去尋求他們自己通常很淺薄的目的

but accurate, unprejudiced information

我們需要精確公正的信息

with which to make our own judgments.

在此基礎上做我們自己的判斷

If we want to provide decent, fulfilling lives

如果我們想要為我們的子孫後代

for our children and our children's children,

提供得體、有意義的生活

we need to exercise to the very greatest degree possible

我們需要在最大程度上行使

that duty of care for a vibrant,

對於這種活躍、希望也是持久的民主

and hopefully a lasting, democracy.

的謹慎責任

Thank you very much for listening to me.

謝謝你們聽我演講

(Applause)

（掌聲）