“News is something somebody doesn't want printed; all else
is advertising,” as Randolph Hearst said. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/77244-news-is-something-somebody-doesn-t-want-printed-all-else-is
Over the last few years, growing numbers of us have become sceptical about the
mainstream media, feeling that our perceptions are being managed by selection
and suppression of facts, and spin.
So we season our understanding with a variety of alternative
sources, many online. One such is Paul Staines, aka “Guido Fawkes,” who gives
us a stream of Westminster gossip and up-to-date news. Some of us appreciate
his support for Brexit, all the more valued since the Daily Mail did a savage
handbrake turn when Geordie Greig took over the editorship.
But a couple of Guido’s recent posts have got me worried.
I’m hoping it’s just owing to the pressure of constant publication, rather than
consciously adopting the Government’s line on Johnson’s “deal.”
****************
On 18th October, he bannered a piece with “Snap
Poll: Public Want The Deal Passing” https://order-order.com/2019/10/18/snap-poll-public-want-deal-passing/
, subtitling it “Two thirds of Leave voters say Parliament should vote to
accept the new Brexit deal.”
His source was a YouGov poll whose headline is very
similar https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/10/18/two-thirds-leave-voters-say-parliament-should-acce
, but whose detail is troubling. Yes, 67% of Leave voters say they want Brexit
done; but YouGov’s third table shows they feel they don’t really know enough.
31% think it is a good deal, 11% think it is bad, and 58% are neutral or
undecided. This is a complex issue, one where facts do matter and as Thoreau
said https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/25/opinion/l-one-man-s-majority-654087.html
, “Any man more right than his neighbours constitutes a majority of one.” The
general public is even more conflicted: 17% say the deal is good, 23% say bad –
and since the 2016 Referendum involved everyone, not just Leavers, perhaps that
should have been the headline. In Guido’s case, his headline and the subheading
are at odds – the public is not the same as its Leaver element.
Does this matter? Yes, it does. You can influence people by
telling them that most of their fellows think a certain way – isn’t that one of
the reasons to own a newspaper? Or to infiltrate the BBC?
******************
Cut to 21st October: Guido tells us “Brexit Party
Supporters Back The Deal” https://order-order.com/2019/10/21/brexit-party-supporters-back-deal/
and crows "Despite Nigel’s continuing opposition for opposition’s sake, it
seems his usually loyal followers are abandoning him in favour of Boris’s new
deal. Last man in the bunker…”
The facts? Out of 1,025 polled among the general public by
Survation https://t.co/kiRyQXmIJA , a
total of 15 (fifteen) Brexiteers “strongly approved” Boris’ deal. (Click on the
link to see the whole thing – Guido’s stats are drawn from Sheet 3, Table 60.)
I am a
little concerned that the survey was conducted on behalf of the Daily Mail –
I’m sure that Survation will have done a professional job, but I wonder what
the brief was; it covers a lot of ground, rather too much in my opinion.
Table 60
analyses responses to Question 26, which reads, "From what you have seen
or heard about the government's Brexit deal, to what extent do you support or
oppose the deal?"
Already we
wonder what the respondents know – what are their sources of information, and
how has it been presented? “Garbage in, garbage out,” as the techies say.
Moreover,
the replies in this table are merely a subset of the total respondents - only
674 out of 1,025 - so the margin of error is greater. Even then, not all in
that subset replied to all parts: the "current voting intention" line
(line #1641, Columns Q-W) adds up to only 601 people, and only 596 people said
how they voted in the 2016 Referendum (Columns H and I). We’re now down to a
sample of less than 60% of people polled.
And Guido’s
news about Brexiteers is not only cherry-picking statistics out of this reduced
sample, but combining them to give a misleading impression of homogeneity of
feeling. The 15 who say they intend to vote TBP next time and who "strongly
supported" Boris' deal (Line 1641, Column T) are added to 36 who only
"somewhat supported" it, to make a combined total of 51 people - then
reported as "67% of Brexit Party supporters."
Step back:
1,025 people took part in the poll; of whom only 87 intend to vote TBP; of whom
only 15 are strongly in favour of the deal. I say, if you really want to know
what TBP supporters feel about Boris’ deal, do a more focused poll. 5,248,533
people voted for TBP in the 2019 European Parliament elections – there’s plenty
of material there!
Using much
the same approach, Guido tells us that 70% of Leave voters and 90% of Tories
also back Johnson’s WA Mark 2. Is this a safe basis? I'm not inclined to think
so.
In fact of
ALL those who responded to question 26 and also indicated their voting
intentions in the next General Election, only 137 "strongly
supported" the proposed deal, and a further mere 158 "somewhat
supported" it. Even adding them together - sheep with cows (Little Boy
Blue, you're falling down on the job) - you get 295 people out of a total
survey population of 1,025. 295 very variably informed people with probably
very differently nuanced stances on their support for "deal".
I wonder
what results we'd have got if respondents were restricted to those who did more
than read the Daily Mail or watch BBC News, and also looked at the detailed
analyses of the pros and cons of the full deal.
********************
We need
informed consent, not managed consent; so we need commentators who view sources
critically and present their findings judiciously. “If you can keep your head
when all around you…”
For we’re
not getting the straight gen from our leaders, are we?
It would
have been comical, had it not been almost tragic, to watch ex-PM Mrs May
castigating the Opposition in Parliament https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1192892/Theresa-may-speech-brexit-vote-today
for failing to honour the statutes they helped enact - withdrawal from the EU,
and the triggering of Article 50.
Did they
mean it? she asked. Well, did she, when she then came to the Commons three
times with a ball-and-chain Withdrawal Agreement? Or her successor, who has
returned with much the same (lipstick on a crocodile, I call it)? Or those who
now call for another Referendum, with a choice of a rotten deal or Remain - the
latter being the one thing that was definitively ruled out in 2016?
Guido, we
need people like you to be our compass, or we shall be lost on a sea of
misinformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment