Trust
MORI have published their annual survey on trust in professionals, carried out for the Royal College of Physicians. Doctors are the most trusted of the professions MORI asked about (as indeed they always are!). As Bob Worcester says on the results page, the most surprising thing about the survey is probably the lack of change over the years.
We might expect to find that politicans and ministers are distrusted as never before, but while they are indeed two of the least trusted professions, with net trustworthyness ratings of -49 for ministers and -58 for politicians, this isn’t actually vastly different to the scores they’ve had for the last 8 years, and higher than they were in the final days of the last Conservative government. (The other highly distrusted group was journalists, though this probably does them a disservice – YouGov occassionally do similar surveys and separate out broadsheet and tabloid journalists: it’s the latter people really distrust, broadsheet journalists are viewed quite positively.)
Nearly all the professions asked about are trusted slightly less than they were last year, with the exception of judges (they were also the odd ones out in the YouGov poll above), though the movements are all small. The only group where there does appear to be a really significan trend over time is TV newsreaders. Their net trustworthyness is now +34, whereas in most previous years they tended to be in the 40s or 50s – in 1997 their net rating was +60 and they were the third most trusted profession. It’s interesting to ponder what has made the shift, the signs were there before the various crises of trust in the BBC last year, perhaps it is just the general movement towards younger presenters rather than the gravitas of past decades.
Filed under: MORI
Regarding the trustworthiness of TV newsreaders, perhaps the newsreaders are regarded more and more as journalists now and are being tarred with the same brush. The “old school” weren’t known for “having a go” during interviews.
Also, the rise of the correspondent, who will give a personal view of events in interview by the newsreader, will have contributed to the perception that news-reading is not as neutral as it was.
Having said that, I think the die was cast when Moira Stuart started referring objectively to “The British” during the Falklands war – from then on I’ve viewed newsreaders with more suspicion.
Broadsheet journalists are also capable of spin – they have a veneer of respectability which makes them even more suspect to me. At least Kelvin McKenzie is openly daft and untrustworthy, rather than pretending to be educated.
I find it hilarious that newsreaders are seen as highly trusted! While there are some excellent folks in front of the camera a lot just seem to be simpering idiots…. maybe that’s why they are trustworthy.. they don’t know enough to deceive!
As these figures are published by someone who is in reporting them effectively a journalist should we believe them?
Jon – it also says 45% of people trust pollsters to tell the truth and 32% don’t.
So I’m 45% trustworthy
And 22% of us aren’t sure, but think you might just be Mike “The Oracle” R in disguise.
Interesting poll – I’m surprised at the numbers for politicians, but perhaps it’s because most of the people saying that politicians are untrustworthy are either other politicians or journalists. Maybe some of the general public doesn’t trust the people telling them not to trust politicians. Or something.
I agree with john tt that the downward trend for newsreaders is probably attributable to the likes of Jon Snow, who is a genuine newsreader for half the programme, then when doing interviews spends more time airing his own opinions than letting his interviewee answer the questions.
The other surprising finding is pollsters. In fact, I’ve had several people say to me they think pollsters “pull their numbers out of a hat” or similar. I’ve tried to explain that’s not the case, but to no avail…
Anthony – but you didn’t poll this, you’re just reporting it… We’ll split the difference and say you’re about 32% trustworth.
Actually, I reckon if you did some individual polling that Jon Snow et al. would come out very well. A newsreader airing their own well-informed opinions is usually more interesting and revealing than having PR people/pundits and media-schooled politicians talking about things they really don’t seem to understand. I think this applies particularly to anything technical or anything that requires a memory longer than a year….
I appreciate that my comments might seems a little contradictory, but I am thinking of the difference between Jon Snow and, say, Dermot Mernahan (gosh a black hole, that sounds awfully complicated and rather boring brigade). Although actually now I come to think of it, the guys on the today programme can be very annoying too… hmmm.. maybe its just me
Don’t trust my opinion though
I usually like John Snow but I was suprised by the line he took about Prince Harry in Afghanistan. He appeared to be suggesting that it was a disgrace that the government had hushed up the media on his whereabouts. This despite the fact that a) nobody wants the media to start handing out military secrets and b) channel 4 were party to it as well. None of the other channels reported it like this. I thought it was quite strange.
I find it strange that professors are significantly less trusted than teachers – and particularly sad that scientists are lower still in public estimation. It’s healthy that people should not be too gullible, but these results suggest to me that we have reached a dangerous and unhealthy level of cynicism about people in public life.
JohnH
“we have reached a dangerous and unhealthy level of cynicism about people in public life.”
Why dangerous ?Why unhealthy ? For whom?
Judges are doing well despite the fact that they are often blamed by politicans for ‘doing the wrong thing’ on sentencing and despite the fact that they rarely answer back [unlike politicans for whom answering back is compulsory!].
HI Colin
IMO Dangerous and unhealthy because cynicism, unlike critical appraisal, is destructive. It breeds helplessness and defeatism. It can also cause a sort of strange inverted arrogance, whereby people who know virtually nothing about a subject are looking for the ways that they are being tricked instead of simply finding out a few basics first…
Look at the discussions surrounding climate change, or the ludicrous conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 or indeed the MMR scare which has caused the UK to have significantly higher measles rates that other developed countries…
Colin
One example, the dangerous reaction to the scare about the MMR vaccine – which put many children at risk because scientists (and government spokesmen) were not believed. Unfortunately when the public stop believing informed experts all they have left as a guide is rumour and gut instinct.
JohnH
My take on MMR was that some ( not all) mothers were concerned that a three in one vaccine overloaded the systems of young children-they were not against the protections at all-but wanted them administered serarately. This was not permitted.
It is IMHO very often the fault of public officials that they meet with scepticism & yes cynicism.This is because they sometimes present people with fait acomplis-decline to address legitimate concerns & questions-adopt uncompromising attitudes in giving advice-fail to consult.
In the age of the Internet it is no longer acceptable for public officials simply to say ” I am an expert-you must believe me & do what I say”.
And I think that is a very healthy state of affairs-the Childcare Authorities of Jersey are about to learn this lesson I feel sure.
Colin
“In the age of the Internet” and sloppy journalism even sometimes on mainstream TV channels, some people will believe almost anything (and don’t get me started on “alternative medicine)! Crazy ideas (e.g. Creationism) and wild conspiracy theories (e.g. global warming is all a conspiracy by scientists) can spread and grow with little or no correction by real, boring fact. This is not healthy scepticism, but more akin to superstition – and potentially very dangerous to the mental and physical health of our society.
The point is that some mothers were spooked by the three in one, not because there was any genuine evidence that it was dangerous, but because of a gleeful anti-intellectual media, a fame seeking doctor, and some politicians who should have known better. Once the rumour had started, no matter how much evidence was produced, the cynic could always just think of it as a conspiracy..
No one persons fault, people in public life can be just as guilty of cynicism as anyone else..
On JohnH point I would agree entirely, except for one thing, which I’m sure he also accepts. Alternative medicine is a media word, the medical profession has always been very quick to adopt any therapy that has been proven to work (acupuncture, hypnosis).. the trouble with many of these treatments is that they have never been tested properly
JohnH
Yes of course all of that is true.There will always be people with prejudiced & closed minds-people who see a conspiracy around every corner-people with axes to grind.
But if your prescription for dealing with this minority is to demand of the majority that they accept without demur the assertions & strictures of “expert public officials” on anything such people choose to pontificate about-then I say that is a very dangerous thing.
Alasdair-Some parents did not trust the vaccination programme, which recommends that one-year-olds get a combined jab for measles, mumps and rubella.
Evidence published in The Lancet medical journal suggested that the combined jab may cause autism and Crohn’s disease.
Autism is a neurological disorder that affects the functioning of the brain and Crohn’s disease affects the bowels.
Parents also expressed fears that a three-in-one vaccination is too powerful for a one-year-old and could have damaging side effects.
Most doctors say that such risks are minimal, and certainly lower than the potential risks of a measles, mumps or rubella infection.
These parents were perfectly within their rights to have concerns on behalf of their young children.To convince them that the risks were low needed carefull and thoughtfull explanation-not dismissive accusations of being “spooked”.
It would have helped enormously if the “experts” had adopted a more flexible attitude to their requests for separate injections.
It’s the dismissive arrogance of public officials which ordinary people sometimes rebel against.
Of course the parents were right to be interested and to think about the subject, the trouble is that the cynicical media and public latched onto one report with a small sample group that seemed to show a correlation between the MMR and autism.
It is very easy to say there should have been greater flexibility in providing multiple vaccinations, but when one is dealing with public health these decisions have unusual consequences simply because of the number of people they effect. By having separate injections many more people will not be vaccinated. In addition, all vaccines carry a tiny risk of side effect, which would be multiplies. Furthermore, I suspect that it would be a great deal more expensive, meaning that the money would have to come out of more serious treatments..
Colin
No, of course I do not expect people to accept, uncritically, views based on “authority” – but I do expect journalists and opinion formers to take the greatest possible care that their views are based on the best possible evidence. That is what science is, and what science tries to do. Loud shouting of contrary views based on personal preference, gut reactions and untested views do not change the truth, or as near as we can get to the truth.
Ah well, back to politics – where truth is never clear and evidence is always dodgy
ON MMR the big mistake was the Government response, as they turned it in to a battle of wills over who was right and took their eye off the ball.
The objective was to protect as many people as possible and that meant to maximise immunisation and keeping herd immunity high ( 95%+). Once confidence was lost for whatever reason and whoever fault the correct strategy was to allow separate vaccines while still recommending MMR.
That compromise would have kept immunisation high and the population safe, failing to compromise and going head to head was a mistake that allowed Measles in particular to return.
A lesson for all governments how not to respond.
I couldn’t understand why there was such an insistence on the MMR jab anyway. When I was a child, Measles, Mumps and Rubella (which we knew as German Measles I think) were just childhood illnesses which nearly everyone caught and then got over. They weren’t much more serious than a bad cold, and warranted a couple of weeks off school at the most.
Therefore if a parent had the slightest doubt about the safety of the jab, they would obviously choose not to have it, as the actual illnesses are so minor in most cases.
I used to look forward to ‘catching something’ so I could have some time off school, and I remember my mother taking me to a friend’s house so that I could catch chickenpox. It was better to get these things over with than risk catching them later in life, when they could be more dangerous.
I knew people who died of diptheria and polio. Measles etc were trivial. Why the fuss now?
I have to agree with SALLY C. – Judges are a well overlooked profession by the general public , they should be voted in based on their political stance on certain issues as in America. They believe they are some kind of “God” with the magic wand to “let off” who they want.
I would’nt particuarly take a stance against journalists in general – but certainly some of the medai they work for – i think in particular of Channel 4 which has got away with unreal , faked & biased documentaries for years !!
Oh yeah – who really trusts their GP after some of the stories you hear on the news !!
Hi Pete Banks….
Measles has a death rate of 1/500 or 1/1000 (depending on who you listent to) which is pretty high, and would cause thousands of deaths per year. It also has a relatively high rate of long term effects such as nerve damage (potentially blindness etc..)
Furthermore, if the group immuity drops through lack of immunization it places vulnerable people (such as the immuno-compromised) in extreme danger, as for them measles has a fatality rate of 30%.
Anyway back to politics
I seem to remember reading that some child did die of measles over the period of the MMR scare. That doesn’t necessarily mean he wouldn’t have died anyway but it still means the subject is a very important one. Someone earlier commented about there being a suspected link to autism. This was never in fact the case; there was one GP who noticed that autism had been rising ever since the MMR jab was introduced and the entire “theory” was based on this. Real scientists pointed out straight away that autism had also been rising in other countries that didn’t have MMR and that the rise in Britain occurred before MMR anyway. The press were never very interested in this though.
The morale? Trust scientists more than journalists (and doctors)
Peter
You think we should have introduced a less effective and more expensive treatment because of a scare story, and in the face of all the evidence? I certainly wouldn’t describe that as the way a government should respond!
But I would strongly question whether the way much of the media responded to this MMR “story” was responsible – no wonder journalists are among the least trusted.
Mike.
I wasn’t having a go at judges.
Incidently, surveys are carried out regularly on a random sample of real court cases with members of the public re sentencing.
For all the public say they want tougher sentences, they are invariably softer when faced with real rather than abstract facts [about 10% less last time I looked].
Much of the critisism levelled at jugdes is based on a failure of the public to understand how constrained they are. There are guildines which dictate the limited circumstances in which the maximium sentence can be given, a certain amount has to come off for a guilty plea, etc.
When in prison, there are guildlines about parol. A judge is not allowed to circumvent the law by ‘adding on’ to compensate.
Some reporters will explain the sentencing , which is becoming more and more like a maths calculation, but many don’t.
My point was that despite their inability to explain themselves and the critisim levelled, the public seem to think they have intergrity. That is not of course to say they agree with their decisions. More, I suspect, along the lines that they are not yet seen as being ‘corrupted’ by politics in general.
After critisisms of Sir Ian Blair, the security services after the ‘Dossier’, accusations of bias and competition irregularites at the BBC, [SPADS] supposedly non political civil servant being used for political ends etc… it seems judges have so far not been tainted with the same brush.
Have again lost my nail-clippers. [C.F. Sky's "Adanm Boulton's Blog"].
Apart from that, the weather is fine. As for the polls/discussions…! [DefenceTalk is more informative, IMHO!]
Can we not wait for a months or so…? [OK, Anthony, it's you job! But, yawn...! Schlaufen sich!]
Acceptable budget from Darling – as long as the military are adequately funded! [No Govern/Scotstoun jobs otherwise!]
I – personally – would like to accept a 2-pence fuel-surcharge for HM-Forces and saving their lives than accept a single “Civil” serf/servant. But the Balls & Cooper will not be able to scam the tax-payers, and say “so what!”. New Labour: Socialists Corrupt Useless Morons!
John H,
It’s about “Ends” and “Means”.
Maximum immunisation uptake was the ends , MMR the chosen means.
Once the public, for whatever reason, had lost confidence in the best means ( and all three of my children had MMR), then the ends could not be met.
When it became clear that attempts to reassure the public weren’t working then changing tack and offering the the option of the individual jabs was the best option for achieving the desired ends.
Would it be as good as everyone taking MMR?… No, but it was clear that that wasn’t going to happen.
The key to victory is knowing what it looks like and in this case victory was getting as many as possible immunised not proving that we were right on MMR.
Peter.
Peter
We will just have to agree to differ on whether good and trustworthy treatments should be given up and less effective, more expensive ones substituted because of a media scare.
There’s no knowing where this would lead once uninformed public opinion is rated as of more importance than sound medical judgement.
On another point: few if any here give Darling some credit for using the limited resources available to redistribute some wealth from big car owners (and drinkers and smokers) to get more children out of poverty – and to do some public good at the same time by reducing unhealthy consumption (including mine, perhaps) – and doing at least something on “green” issues. This was in a small way a brave move in the right (or do I mean left?) direction, even if it doesn’t gain any votes.
JohnH,
I didn’t say it should be given up, but that MMR should continue to be recommended, but the individuals jabs offered to those who would prefer not to use MMR.
It’s not about giving in to a media scare but accepting that some people are scared and allowing them an option which gets their children immunised and both protects them and the population as a whole.
I don’t see it as wise to dig your heals in and insist that it has to be your way or nothing if it’s unlikely to achieve your objective, unless of course you think the important thing in this was to assert that “The State is Always Right”….
Peter.
Peter
Not “my way”, and nothing really to do with government; but the way recommended on the basis of evidence by the medical experts. Otherwise we’ll be heading back to the dark ages, ignoring evidence and making decisions based on prejudice and ignorance.
Of course that does NOT mean we all have to follow the “experts” like sheep. But (going back to the origin of this thread), there are some situations where those who have the training and expertise need to be trusted and, where cynicism and lack of trust can damage individuals and society.
It also points up the need for reliable, accurate information from the media, especially in an era where the internet can so easily spread misinformation and wild rumour, as well as being a marvellous way of spreading genuine information.
JohnH,
So in effect what you are advocating is that even if offering the option of individual jabs to those who had doubts would have upped the immunisation rates the the levels needed you would still have insisted on MMR or nothing even if it had meant, more illness, more permanent disablement and more deaths.
Just to prove that the scientists were right.
Lets not forget that less than a decade before the same scientific establishment had overwhelmingly ruled out a link between eating beef and nvBSE, only to have had to reverse it’s view within five years.
If for some reason, good or not, people have lost confidence saying, that they are wrong to have lost it and demanding they regain it, because you are an expert, doesn’t strike me as a winning strategy.
Peter.
Peter:-
“If for some reason, good or not, people have lost confidence saying, that they are wrong to have lost it and demanding they regain it, because you are an expert, doesn’t strike me as a winning strategy.”
That is very well put & I agree absolutely.
The advocates of “I’m an expert-believe me ” always see the issues entirely from the point of view of the establishment, who of course want things to be as they have planned.Any change upsets the plan & probably costs money.
In the case of MMR-they were saying to mothers of young children-look , OK, there has been some evidence ( Lancet) of (potentialy severe) side effects-but the risks are vanishingly small-so take that risk.And forget your fears of single jab overload-its not a problem. And anyway you can’t have three jabs seperately.
And they got the predictable response from mothers who refused to take a risk which they believed existed.
The lesson of burgers & CJD was indeed in their minds-and it was two fold.Firstly the experts were wrong. Secondly the responsible politician believed them & put his own child at risk- in public- because of it.
These are the people responsible for public scepticism-Inexpert “experts” and complacent politicians.
Peter
Although I understand your point of view, I can’t agree that an inferior treatment should be substituted – at public expense – for one that those best qualified to judge the evidence considered both better and completely safe. (Of course there’s nothing to stop those who refuse to accept the evidence arranging private treatment at their own expense).
And, yes, I agree that the experts do sometimes get things wrong – and we should always try to see for ourselves, not just follow blindly. But in this particular case the world-wide evidence was known to be overwhelmingly against the scare story, and this should have been made clear by all the responsible print and broadcast media.
So we’ll just have to agree to differ on this!
By the way, I think we’re the only two left here
Saw the account on Shannon Matthews this morning. Perhaps news reporters are trusted less because they don’t seem to be reporting the facts as much as dictating what the public should think. News 24 on the BBC seems to be full of filler and very much tailored for the US market – surprisingly Sky News is much better.