In the midst of the robocall scandal Postmedia columnist Andrew Coyne tweeted that "everyone in politics is trying to con you one way or another." Response from Canadians was supportive. Disagreements came, not surprisingly, from politicians.
Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi, for one, expressed surprise at the number of people agreeing with Coyne, describing the tweet as "cynical" and failing to "stand up to any kind of scrutiny."
Nenshi probably missed recent polling numbers released by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy in which 58 per cent of Canadians described politicians as "unprincipled." Only one per cent had a "very-favourable" opinion of politicians, probably close to the proportion of people actively involved in the political process.
In releasing the poll numbers, the centre described the robocall scandal as "deplorable," noting it was eroding public confidence. Ironically, the Manning centre itself is less concerned with building democracy than it is with strengthening the political right. Any way, the observation seems a little late in the day considering the poll results. Another percentage point of erosion before public confidence becomes non-existent.
It's possible that only one per cent of Canadians have it right, but it's also possible Canadians are expressing a view consistent with their experience.
I suspect the latter because so many involved in politics have demonstrated themselves to be unprincipled, at least in the spirit of legendary New York adman Bill Bernbach's observation that "a principle is not a principle until it costs you money." When was the last time a politician stood on principle to the point of losing office?
The idea is embedded in our parliamentary democracy as ministerial responsibility, but really, when was the last time a minister resigned because of this? Nowadays, they call the communications department.
The communications department - including public relations, public engagement, etc. - has replaced responsibility in the political landscape because of how enormously effective modern communication techniques are at deflecting responsibility through framing and spinning messages.
The practice itself is spun as presenting the positive or the horribly pompous educating the public, but is, nonetheless, an exercise in manipulation based on science.
People make different choices depending upon how information is presented to them, the way it's framed. For example, anti-abortionists frame their position as pro-life (making everyone else pro-death) while abortion supporters frame their position as pro-choice (making everyone else pro-dictatorship).
You may think yourself above this kind manipulation but none of us are. Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize for a lifetime of work demonstrating just how well it works and the cognitive processes behind it. Modern communications makes use of this knowledge by presenting information in a way that has people reaching conclusions and making decisions they would not otherwise make.
American physicist Richard Feynman defined honesty as not just saying why you think you're right, but also why you could be wrong. Honesty is the opposite of spin. What comes from communications isn't lying, but it's also not honesty.
? So, the Government of B.C. correctly asserts that alcohol-related fatalities have dropped since the introduction of recent driver legislation, but omits statistical analysis that the drop is insufficient to conclude the legislation made the difference.
• Federal Minister Leona Agluk-kaq describes recent cost cutting in the health portfolio as an effort to protect the Canadian taxpayer, but presumably, not from food poisoning.
• Ontario Liberals proclaim their plan created "46,100 jobs in March," but omit that the same plan was in place during job losses.
• The City of Calgary reports high attendance figures for community engagement workshops, but omits it's the same paltry few representing special interests attending every event.
• The Canadian Institute of Healthcare Information highlights positive wait-time benchmarks, but doesn't mention that the bench-marks themselves make the data biased and unreliable.
The point isn't to highlight the most egregious examples, none of these are, but rather to show just how ubiquitous the framing and spinning of messages has become.
How will they get out of this one?
We even have government framing messages to itself, raising the at once frightening, and comical, spectre of political leaders believing their own spin. Even the federal auditor-general couldn't tell precisely who was saying what to whom in the F-35 debacle. The government is now framing this as an accounting issue. No wonder politics has become a spectator sport with the public more interested in, "I wonder how they will get out of this one?" than any issues of malfeasance.
Yale University statistician and political scientist Edward Tufte said that communicating is "a moral act as well as an intellectual activity." We've lost sight of that. In politics, the new communications have made it an intellectual activity in commission of an immoral act.
Notice I didn't mention elections? Too easy.
Original Article
Source: the province
Author: Robert Gerst
Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi, for one, expressed surprise at the number of people agreeing with Coyne, describing the tweet as "cynical" and failing to "stand up to any kind of scrutiny."
Nenshi probably missed recent polling numbers released by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy in which 58 per cent of Canadians described politicians as "unprincipled." Only one per cent had a "very-favourable" opinion of politicians, probably close to the proportion of people actively involved in the political process.
In releasing the poll numbers, the centre described the robocall scandal as "deplorable," noting it was eroding public confidence. Ironically, the Manning centre itself is less concerned with building democracy than it is with strengthening the political right. Any way, the observation seems a little late in the day considering the poll results. Another percentage point of erosion before public confidence becomes non-existent.
It's possible that only one per cent of Canadians have it right, but it's also possible Canadians are expressing a view consistent with their experience.
I suspect the latter because so many involved in politics have demonstrated themselves to be unprincipled, at least in the spirit of legendary New York adman Bill Bernbach's observation that "a principle is not a principle until it costs you money." When was the last time a politician stood on principle to the point of losing office?
The idea is embedded in our parliamentary democracy as ministerial responsibility, but really, when was the last time a minister resigned because of this? Nowadays, they call the communications department.
The communications department - including public relations, public engagement, etc. - has replaced responsibility in the political landscape because of how enormously effective modern communication techniques are at deflecting responsibility through framing and spinning messages.
The practice itself is spun as presenting the positive or the horribly pompous educating the public, but is, nonetheless, an exercise in manipulation based on science.
People make different choices depending upon how information is presented to them, the way it's framed. For example, anti-abortionists frame their position as pro-life (making everyone else pro-death) while abortion supporters frame their position as pro-choice (making everyone else pro-dictatorship).
You may think yourself above this kind manipulation but none of us are. Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize for a lifetime of work demonstrating just how well it works and the cognitive processes behind it. Modern communications makes use of this knowledge by presenting information in a way that has people reaching conclusions and making decisions they would not otherwise make.
American physicist Richard Feynman defined honesty as not just saying why you think you're right, but also why you could be wrong. Honesty is the opposite of spin. What comes from communications isn't lying, but it's also not honesty.
? So, the Government of B.C. correctly asserts that alcohol-related fatalities have dropped since the introduction of recent driver legislation, but omits statistical analysis that the drop is insufficient to conclude the legislation made the difference.
• Federal Minister Leona Agluk-kaq describes recent cost cutting in the health portfolio as an effort to protect the Canadian taxpayer, but presumably, not from food poisoning.
• Ontario Liberals proclaim their plan created "46,100 jobs in March," but omit that the same plan was in place during job losses.
• The City of Calgary reports high attendance figures for community engagement workshops, but omits it's the same paltry few representing special interests attending every event.
• The Canadian Institute of Healthcare Information highlights positive wait-time benchmarks, but doesn't mention that the bench-marks themselves make the data biased and unreliable.
The point isn't to highlight the most egregious examples, none of these are, but rather to show just how ubiquitous the framing and spinning of messages has become.
How will they get out of this one?
We even have government framing messages to itself, raising the at once frightening, and comical, spectre of political leaders believing their own spin. Even the federal auditor-general couldn't tell precisely who was saying what to whom in the F-35 debacle. The government is now framing this as an accounting issue. No wonder politics has become a spectator sport with the public more interested in, "I wonder how they will get out of this one?" than any issues of malfeasance.
Yale University statistician and political scientist Edward Tufte said that communicating is "a moral act as well as an intellectual activity." We've lost sight of that. In politics, the new communications have made it an intellectual activity in commission of an immoral act.
Notice I didn't mention elections? Too easy.
Original Article
Source: the province
Author: Robert Gerst
No comments:
Post a Comment