The propaganda game

Friday, September 12, 2008

The propaganda game

How do you fabricate a headline like: "Most Europeans 'very concerned' by climate change"? – this one delivered courtesy of the news agency AFPyesterday.

Well, it's easier than you think. Firstly, you throw a tidy sum of money at some perfectly respectable and professional opinion pollsters and you set them to work interviewing 30,170 citizens in the 27 Member States of the European Union – in this case between 25 March and 4 May 2008. 

For each of the selected responders, you tell the interviewer to present them with a printed card (illustrated top left) listing a global problems which you have selected, with "global warming" as the top item, conveniently numbered #1. Crucially, do do not include choices such as "energy security" or any variation of that theme.

Then, you have each respondent, while they gaze at the card so conveniently provided, answer the question: "In your opinion, which of the following do you consider to be the most serious problem currently facing the world as a whole?" Note: you do not invite them to volunteer a choice, and you restrict answers to problems "currently facing the world as a whole", thus excluding local and national concerns.

And what do you think the answer will be?

Yet, even with a totally bogus set-up like that, the best the polling companies could come up with was that "global warming" ranked second. It gained a score of 62 percent across the whole of the EU, compared with "poverty, the lack of food and drinking water" which ranked a clear first for 68 percent of the respondents.

Nevertheless, you publish the results in a Eurobarometer report with a press release that says global warming was deemed by "Europeans" as "among the most serious problems".

You could, of course, have headlined: "poverty, lack of food and drinking water more important than climate change," but that does not fit your narrative. Instead, you embellish your global warming results by stating, "At the country level, absolute majorities in nearly all countries regard global warming/climate change as a serious problem." And you let the media do the rest.

Interestingly, the British proved relatively resistant to this game, 60 percent of them putting "international terrorism" at the top of their global concerns. Global warming only got 57 percent, followed by "poverty, etc.," at 53 percent.

Having preconditioned the responses, however, the interviewers went on to ask: "And how serious a problem do you think global warming is at this moment?" EU-wide, they suckered 76 percent into saying it was "serious", 16 percent "fairly serious". Only seven percent said it was "not a serious problem". Given, however, that most had already admitted that it was a "serious problem" in the first question, how could they say it was not serious in the second?

Thus, even in the UK, 69 percent said it was a "serious" problem, and 23 percent conceded "fairly serious". But a full 14 percent answered that it was "not a serious problem", the highest score in the whole of the EU. Yet, the British also scored as one of the highest for considering themselves well informed, at 72 percent compared with the leader, Sweden, at 85 percent and the EU average of 56 percent.

Another fascinating insight comes from a further question. Bearing in mind the majority had already been gulled into admitting global warming was a "serious" problem, responders were asked whether they would pay more for "green" energy, and how much they would be prepared to pay. Only 36 percent were prepared to pay more as against 41 percent who would not (23 percent don't know) and the increase volunteered by those prepared to pay more averaged a mere 13.3 percent.

This gives the UK a clear majority of refusniks compared with the EU average of 44 percent who would be prepared to pay more and the 30 percent who were not.

Basically, therefore, even in this skewed survey, where people were manoeuvred into giving false prominence to global warming, the majority of Brits said they were not prepared to pay more in energy bills. Even those who said they would pay more were only offering a fraction of what is being demanded.

Bearing in mind that the 35 percent hike in gas and electricity bills came after this survey was completed, neither the EU nor the British government can claim that the British are prepared to pay through the nose for the global warming obsession. 

Needless to say, the "colleagues" will now push the mantra that "Most Europeans [are] 'very concerned' by climate change" and use it to convince themselves that their policies have popular support. Those who are watching the small print, however, may think differently, and see this survey for what it is – part of the propaganda game.

COMMENT THREAD

Thursday, September 11, 2008

The ignorance of the Irish

Under normal circumstances, our lead story this morning would have been the release of the Irish government's research on voting behaviour during theconstitutional Lisbon treaty referendum. That we get to it late, though, does not diminish our view of its importance.

Covered extensively in The Irish Timesand to a lesser extent elsewhere, the research concludes that 42 percent of people cited a lack of knowledge, information or understanding of the treaty as the reason for voting "no". It was, we are told, by far the most significant reason given for voting against the treaty.

Predictably, the research makes great play of the findings that more "no" voters were ill-informed about some aspects of the treaty, than were "yes" voters. For instance, only 26 percent of "yes" voters believed that the treaty would introduce conscription to a European Army, contrasted with 48 percent of "no" voters who believed this. Some 27 percent of "yes" voters believed the treaty would end control over abortion, against 48 percent of "no" voters.

However, turning this round, some 76 percent of "yes" voters believed the treaty "improved [the] efficiency of EU decision-making" while only 58 percent of the "no" voters believed that to be the case. A massive 81 percent of the "yes" vote believed the treaty would "strengthen Europe's role in the world", with only 63 percent of the "no" vote believing this. Some 63 percent of the "yes" vote believed the treaty would "strengthen the role of national parliaments". Only 43 percent of the "no" vote believed that to be case.

In that the first two issues cited (conscription and abortion) related largely to matters of fact, one can see the value of the findings to the Irish government. But, when it comes to the other matters, these are very much expressions of opinion – and highly tendentious at that.

Arguably – and very strongly so – that the treaty "strengthens the role of national parliaments" is simply not true. It seriously diminishes their powers. As for, "improving [the] efficiency of EU decision-making", what is meant by that? One man's "efficiency" is another's loss of democracy.

Thus, on the basis of the government's own research, one could argue that, if anything, the "yes" voters were less well-informed than the "no" camp, only about different things. Either way, therefore, the research does not actually take the dispute about the treaty any further.

Nevertheless, the report sparks a strong leader in The Irish Times, some of it with which we would agree. Heading its piece, "An indictment of democracy", the paper opines:

Voters have a poor objective knowledge of how the EU works, especially on the No side. This extends well beyond the Lisbon framework to encompass basic understanding of its purposes, membership and functioning. This is a lamentable state of affairs in a modern democracy which shares so many decisions with other states. It is an indictment not only of the Irish referendum campaign, but of the EU, its leadership and its institutions at large. When compounded by a definite loss of trust in leaders and parties in Ireland, it amounts to a dangerous loss of legitimacy for our political system. This survey finds 50 percent of voters do not feel close to any of the political parties. It was not surprising then that those who normally vote for one or other of them failed to follow their advice on the treaty.

Our dispute here would be in the suggestion that "yes" voters had any better understanding of the purposes, membership and functioning of the EU. Our suspicion is that, should detailed questions on these matters be put both sides, there would be very little to chose between the results. How many, for instance, could confidently assert that they knew anything of the vital role of "comitology" within the EU?

Howsoever, the results of the research have given the Irish government food for thought and we are now effectively getting confirmation that there will be no second referendum before the next euro-elections.

This comes via Jean-Guy Giraud, the former director of the EU parliament’s office in Paris, now special adviser in charge of following ratification of theconstitutional Lisbon Treaty. He offers a solution to the impasse of a sort, but also notes that the delay in ratification "could have a negative effect on European public opinion, strengthening the Eurosceptic vote in the June 2009 parliamentary elections."

This is possibly not the only factor. In the Irish Times today, we also get news that the ECJ has ruled against Ireland in a case concerning a failure to comply with the Urban Waste Water Directive in six areas.

Phil Hogan, Fine Gael's spokesman on environment, heritage and local government, now complains that the Irish taxpayer is "at risk of millions of euros of fines …", even if he puts this down to "to Government inaction."

Not all will be taking the same view, some preferring to look to their tormentors in Brussels, where the "colleagues" are so keen better to communicate their policies.

COMMENT THREAD