Why Is “It was part of the system and the culture of the time” Shocking, When It’s Simple Fact?

'It' being the treatment of unwed mothers by the church in Ireland.

While public expression by the state of its culpability has been explicit and categorical, the remorse expressed on the religious side has been less clear-cut. Past statements from the orders involved such as “with deep regret … we acknowledge that there are women who did not experience our refuge as a place of protection and care” and “it is regrettable that the Magdalene homes had to exist at all” lack a certain tone of regret, shall we say. The Good Shepherd Sisters, as they are now known, have made particularly impressive use of grammatical gymnastics over the years (“We sincerely regret that women could have experienced hurt and hardship”). Perhaps most shocking was this: “It was part of the system and the culture of the time.”

It's a simple statement of fact - it's only 'shocking' to modern sensibilities. Back when this was happening pretty nearly everyone agreed with the attitude towards sex and childbith out of wedlock. 

Nothing from the nuns, or the Catholic church, has really come close to expressing true remorse. A “definitive” apology in 2021 from Eamon Martin, Ireland’s most senior church figure, was worded thus: “I accept that the church was clearly part of that culture in which people were frequently stigmatised, judged and rejected. For that, and for the longlasting hurt and emotional distress that has resulted, I unreservedly apologise.” Yet the church wasn’t just part of that culture. It was the culture, saturating every aspect of life in Ireland, shaping public attitudes towards women and their babies, encouraging their shaming and ostracising. Some campaigners have called for church assets to be seized unless the institution contributes to a state-run redress scheme.

So, if not for the church, everyone would have been just fine with women sleeping around and dropping litters like stray cats? I really don't think Ireland would have looked like a colder, wetter San Francisco, love.  

I was too young when I saw in 2002 The Magdalene Sisters, a drama which gave me a lifelong aversion to Irish nuns, so repugnant and sadistic was their behaviour towards the vulnerable women in their control.

Wow! Wait until you get to watch 'Adolescence'!  

If ‘More Government Propaganda!’ Is The Answer…

...then you're almost certainly asking the wrong question.

On 4 August 2024, the riots and disturbances that followed the killing of three children in Southport, on Merseyside, spread even further. That day, in the midst of a seething mess of far-right misinformation and rumour-mongering, the violence hit Rotherham – where people tried to set fire to a hotel housing asylum-seekers – as well as Middlesbrough and Bolton. Serving notice of his new interest in UK affairs, Elon Musk posted a picture of violence in Liverpool on X with a characteristically measured caption: “Civil war is inevitable.” And 24 hours later, the wave of unrest reached the city of Plymouth.

Where could the city’s 260,000 residents turn for reliable information?

Social media? Yup! 

As ever, as people’s social media feeds brimmed with untruths and provocations, more traditional outlets were an obvious choice. But if you tuned into the local BBC radio station while the riot was happening, you might easily have had no idea about any of it. BBC Radio Devon carried a report about the violence in its 6 o’clock news, but at 7pm and 9pm, Plymouth received no mention at all.

Welp, there you go. If there's a vacuum, something is bound to fill it.  

We now know all this thanks to the BBC’s response to a complaint made by David Lloyd, a radio veteran who has worked for both the corporation and commercial stations. The relevant official document, written by the corporation’s complaints director, is quite a read: it includes an admission that “there was little evidence of the BBC having a presence on the scene”, something partly connected to “several logistical problems” on the day in question, including “the availability of journalists who had the required riot training”, as well as “technical issues with broadcasting kit”.

What does all that mean? 'Journalists' who no longer go out chasing stories, perhaps, who are content to sit in a warm office, and farm social media for their 'scoops'?  

Even online, where the modern corporation insists it must focus a lot of its efforts, there was no dedicated live coverage of the Plymouth riot – nor, the report suggests, enough updates posted on the big social media platforms. On the latter score, “more would have been done, had it not been for staff leave”.

Once, journalists would have come in regardless if there was something interesting happening. It was how they made names for themselves. 

Something happens, but what do people read or hear about it? Either nothing at all, or some awful version of it plucked by a foreign billionaire from the fringes of the internet or algorithmically amplified, to the point that questions of truth or falsehood fall away, and a mendacious story creates its own shockwaves. If that is the kind of future we should all be striving to avoid, local reporting ought to be our first antidote.

And yet, no-one’s doing it. Times have changed.