Although the demise of Niccolò Machiavelli isn’t far from reaching its quincentennial year, his political philosophy has lived on and has been imbued within many leaders throughout the ages.

Deemed a philosopher who was viewed by some as endorsing a dishonest and tyrannical approach, his memory has long since been turned into an adjective that none of us would ever wish to behold.

It’s no surprise therefore that Machiavelli was one of the first to be attributed to the saying, ‘the end justifies the means’ which is evident in his book ‘The Prince’.

And while political scrutiny is, rightly, alive and well and in many circumstances challenges the immoral approach that Machiavelli so readily observed, at what point does it become evident that there is no justification for what may or may not be a potential end?

While not the focus for this piece it’s hard not to relate this to the US Presidential election and the manner in which it was conducted.  Many supporters were, in one of the most unedifying campaigns in history, been only too willing to fire furtive Machiavellian shots at the other side.

Some will have seen FBI Director James Comey’s revival of a previously completed investigation into Hilary Clinton’s email practices, offering few new specifics, as being politically motivated.  Others will say he was duty bound.  Whether it had any impact on the outcome is conjecture, but it begs the question did the end justify the means within a campaign where it had the potential to prejudice the outcome 11 days before the election?  The fact that he cleared Clinton on any criminal wrongdoing on the eve of the election, in the eyes of her supporters, added insult to injury.

Some say politicians are fair game, they dish it out they should lap it up…’the end justifies the means’.  But what if there is no end, as many Clinton supporters would contend? Who, when they first read the front page of the Sunday Times on the 25th March 2012 ‘Tory treasurer charges £250,000 to meet PM’didn’t take it as verbatim that Peter Cruddas the Conservative party Treasurer was corrupt?  In a so called sting by two journalists the Conservative party themselves did, taking the articles at face value with Cruddas being forced to resign the night the article appeared.

In a subsequent court case the newspaper report was found to be untruthful, misleading, vindictive and malicious.  Yes Cruddas got substantial damages but at what cost? 

While it must be noted such journalistic abuses are not commonplace Brooke Binkowski, editor at debunking website Snopes highlights a concern that some professionals and a cottage industry of other people are issuing news stories through social media and other means that she claims are fake but are being accepted as they position themselves as satirical.

Malcolm X was a man who divided opinion yet it cannot be denied that he was one of the most influential African Americans ever.  Over 50 years ago he saw the impact of the media stating ‘they have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.’

Little has changed in the intervening years, particularly for those that are innocently accused but will always be guilty in the minds of many.  This of course has been significantly accentuated and magnified by the advent of unaccountable social media.

The lives of Paul Gambaccini and Sir Cliff Richard were torn asunder as they lived under a shroud of historical sexual abuse suspicion before it was announced there was no charge to be heard.   Indeed, we also know that those who aren’t suspected of anything can be driven to desperate acts by the media’s treatment.  While others may always feel the burden of the horrendous suicide of David Kelly, the scientist at the centre of the Iraq weapons of mass destruction storm, the media’s role cannot be underestimated.

Previous cases and the reach of social media has brought more onus to ensure undue reputational damage is not inflicted on innocent people.

Regarding the protection of suspects, a Commons home affairs select committee in 2015 recommended that anyone, before they are charged, should have the same right to anonymity that protects victims of alleged sexual offences, including rape.  This is as it should be, with no leaks on suspect details, if we don’t want to enhance a guilty until proven innocent approach that can so often be played out in the media, both traditional and new.

When it was announced post–Christmas 2010 that Christopher Jeffries had been arrested for the murder of Joanna Yeats in Bristol, just one of the headlines read ‘Weird, Posh, Lewd, Creepy’. Every aspect of the retired teacher’s life was played out in an incredulous media witch hunt.  So damning were the reports that eight media outlets were libellous with Vincent Tabak eventually being convicted of the murder with Jeffries completely innocent.

This is an extreme example but we continue to see suspects’ details prematurely being announced, as one high profile case in Northern Ireland highlighted recently.  People who conduct criminal acts must be convicted but too many times stigma stays with suspects who turn out to be innocent and it can also, in some cases, prejudice a potential conviction.

The power of the media has many guises and NBC was lambasted for its false news tweet that the Turkish President had fled to Germany to seek asylum on the night of the failed coup in July, which increased the potential for the government overthrow succeeding.  The responsibility of the media and its power of influence cannot be underestimated, even withstanding the post Leveson inquiry, and its social media impact is instant with potential long lasting consequences.

That power combined with the knowledge and details of crime suspects, if it is used irresponsibly, before an investigation is complete and a person is charged can create irreversible public and private enmity.  

Law enforcement needs the support of communities to bring people to justice and that is crucial for a fair and just society.  However, that process loses some integrity when suspects’ details are released before being charged, where it is not for good reason.   In this scenario we move a step closer to a society where ‘guilty until proven innocent prevails’ as opposed to its antipode and we take Machiavelli’s analysis a step further and justify the means whether there is an end or not.