This is how you lie
A couple of weeks ago we went to the rather excellent “Propaganda – Power And Persuasion” exhibition at the British Library in London. If that’s a bit too much of a trek for you, the book only costs £4 more than entry to the exhibition and contains a large proportion of the content. Sadly, though, it misses the single best exhibit.
The piece in question is a small, scruffy hand-written piece of paper on which press baron Viscount Northcliffe had scribbled half-a-dozen cardinal rules of propaganda – as part of his work in that role during World War 1 – in terms so clear and concise it took our breath away. Photography was banned at the show, and the lines were so good we may yet have to go back and pay another nine quid in order to copy them down.
We’re pretty sure Scotland on Sunday’s Euan McColm has read them, though.
Much of today’s SoS is a crude, ham-fisted child’s attempt at the art of disinformation. Worst of all is a prominent embarrassment of a scare story about higher mobile-phone roaming charges in an independent Scotland, a notion so comprehensively discredited within hours of being aired that the Sunday Herald had plenty of time to point out the clanger in its print as well as online editions.
(Even the BBC’s TV news has been leading all morning with the EU’s slashing of roaming charges, though it also reports the UK government’s dud fearbomb.)
Much of the rest of today’s SoS is filled with anti-independence stories almost as clumsily executed, but Euan McColm’s work is a cut above his less-able colleagues, and is a masterfully professional demonstration of how a really good propagandist can tell lies using only the truth.
The opening paragraph of the piece sets out its stall:
“A great contemporary myth is that Scots are peculiarly outraged by the cuts to welfare being implemented by the United Kingdom government.
SNP and Labour politicians alike have sought to make capital out of coalition austerity measures with the suggestion – explicit in the case of the nationalists – that Scots are too compassionate to entertain such cruelty.”
This is skilled journalistic prose. The first paragraph sets up an eye-catching argument to attract the reader’s attention, and the second paragraph states some unquestionably true facts in order to firm up the proposition. With the reader duly lulled, the next paragraph drops the bomb:
“The flaw with this approach, so far, has been defiant Scottish support for the action taken by Chancellor George Osborne.”
Wait, what? “Defiant Scottish support” for brutal cuts imposed by a Tory Chancellor with just one MP out of 59 in Scotland? That doesn’t sound very plausible. But then comes the clever bit:
“The Tory-Lib Dem coalition may have been under relentless opposition attack over the cap on benefits but they’ve been able to take comfort from YouGov polling showing voters both north and south of the Border are in favour – by a comfortable margin of three to one – of a £26,000-a-year limit on what individual households receive. If Scots are unusually compassionate, we haven’t shown it by feeling the pain of those who’ve been hardest hit.”
It’s absolutely true that YouGov polling does indeed show that. A survey indicated that just 7% of Scots disagree with the idea of a benefit cap, with 13% in the “Don’t know” camp, and a majority actually supporting one lower than £26,000. Mr McColm has told no lies. He has, however, omitted several rather key facts.
1. The poll in question was conducted in January 2012, long before the reality of the benefit cap, combined with other welfare reforms, became apparent.
2. The Scottish sample of the poll comprised just 152 Scottish adults, and is therefore psephologically all but worthless.
3. Most crucial of all, however, is the fact that a £26,000 benefits cap in Scotland is a very different beast to a £26,000 benefits cap in the south of England, from where over half the poll’s respondents were taken.
Terrifyingly, the average monthly rent in London (including outer London) is now £1,272 a month. Over a year, that comes to £15,264 – well over half of the £26,000 figure on housing benefits alone. The “mix-adjusted” average for Scotland is £675 – even in Edinburgh the figure for a two-bedroom property is just £730.
The fact of the matter, then, is that for people in Scotland a £26,000 benefit cap IS in fact pretty reasonable (assuming a link to inflation). It would be extremely difficult for any Scottish family to rack up a bigger benefits bill than that, and therefore it’s entirely rational that Scottish people would be more inclined to support such a limit.
For a very large proportion of the population of England, however, a cap at that level amounts to a sentence of social cleansing. The entire South-East, for example, has average rents over the £1000 barrier, and for large families or those with additional needs such as disabilities the cap represents a very real danger.
(The UK government’s own figures suggest – see page 9 here – that almost half the families likely to be affected by the cap live in Greater London. Just 4% are in Scotland, a disproportionately small share even when compared to Wales.)
So while people in Scotland may have given much the same answer as their southern counterparts (albeit in an outdated poll with an insignificant sample size), in effect they weren’t being asked the same question.
By presenting the data without those pertinent pieces of information, Euan McColm manages to distort the truth for political ends while still exclusively citing true facts. And THAT, dear reader, is the art of the propagandist.
Amazing Article (Doffs Hat)
Personally, I don’t think the journalist in question is that clever. He has an agenda, he casts around for scenarios that fit it, he cocks his blunderbuss and lets go.
I think you underestimate Mr McColm at your peril. In my view he’s probably the most accomplished writer on the No side of the media, and therefore the most dangerous. Don’t confuse his cretinous personality with his professional work. (As people have often said about me.)
It’s propaganda that’s for sure.
The only problem for MColm is that he’s writing for a rag with no audience other than a handful of staunch unionists and those indy supporters who have a fetish for self harm.
The Daily Record is a rag that worries me. It has a much larger audience and a definite unionist agenda. How can they be subverted?
“fact of the matter, then, is that for people in Scotland a £26,000 benefit cap IS in fact pretty reasonable (assuming a link to inflation).”
Good point – makes sense for benefit levels to be flexible depending on the cost-of-living. A one-size-fits-all is arguably an unfair use of resources for people living in high cost areas.
“makes sense for benefit levels to be flexible depending on the cost-of-living. A one-size-fits-all is arguably an unfair use of resources for people living in high cost areas.”
The danger, of course, is the same one that has punished so many families as part of the UK government’s pledge to “make work pay”. They haven’t made work pay, they’ve just made being unemployed more punitive, which isn’t the same thing. Regional benefit caps are a slippery slope, and the longer-term outcome of them is outwith the remit of YouGov’s simplistic question.
Good article.
The crashing sales figures for the ‘Scotsman’ show us that month on month less people are being taken in by McColms lies.
There’s still the online side of the Scotsman but the comments often undoes the propaganda and actually alerts the viewer to a lot of the misinformation that we are being fed.
They sometimes try to stop the comments, but if they want the advertising revenue then this won’t wash (it’s why the BBC banning comments is such a disgrace)
So McColm and his ilk can’t ply their trade in the way they used to..no wonder they hate us cybernats so much.
A couple of links that might save you that return trip to the BL…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22569913
http://www16.us.archive.org/stream/robertdonaldbein00tayliala/robertdonaldbein00tayliala_djvu.txt [search the page for ‘fragment’]
In the article McColm also dismisses the longer qualifying period for claiming JSA as nothing since people will have redundancy money to keep them going – this is the comment I posted there earlier –
“Yes, those who are made redundant will probably have some sort of pay-off to (maybe) tide them over, but these are not the folk who will be hardest hit by the extended period. It will be the much larger group who have been forced onto short-term, zero-hours contracts who are laid off, without compensation, and at a moments notice every few weeks, and now will have to survive without money for that bit longer.
Concentrating on those made redundant and on the benefits cap – an amount that most affected can only dream of reaching – in this article is to introduce red herrings to suit the agenda.”
The Scottish sample of the poll comprised just 152 Scottish adults, and is therefore psephologically all but worthless.
Particularly as it’s not weighted to demographically represent Scotland (e.g. by age, A,B,C1,C2,D,E etc) as it’s a sub-sample.
And Yougov’s the worst off them all as it weights the UK data based on newspaper readership and what people voted at the last GE. Which is just stupid when it comes to Scotland. Scotland’s not England fool.
I don’t agree with regional benefit caps; after all we don’t have regional tax and regional NI rates. I seem to remember Nicola Sturgeon stating that only10 families in all of Scotland would be affected by the cap. It’s a London and SE problem that could be resolved by either
1) more low cost social housing
2) a rent cap.
The biggest problem with the cap is that it’s implied that many people get £26k. The majority get nowhere near. Basic benefit levels are extremely low and if you don’t qualify for housing help (e.g non dependent non-householders or people with mortgages), God help you because the state won’t
Gordon Hay – exactly! And it also ignores the fact that with universal credit, claiments will be paid 4 weeks in arrears. So that’s 5 weeks without any income, which if don’t qualify for any redundancy money, well Wonga et al will be happy. It’s all very well to say put some money by for a rainy day but who can do that on low wages and rising bills.
“A couple of links that might save you that return trip to the BL…”
Fantastic work, Martin, cheers. That’s not quite all of it, but it’s most of it.
Clever and creepy in equal measure. Its enough to make you sleep with the lights on. 😉
OT. I like watching the F1 Grand Prix, but I may have to turn off the TV. Even this has turned into a bloody Britfest! Is there no end to this?
Even this has turned into a bloody Britfest!
It’s the British GP. It’s always a Britfest. The clue is in the name.
Rev,
Is this the piece you saw? (from link Martin posted) –
‘Lies are the least effective form of propaganda ; the
effect of a lie diminishes and the effect of a frank state-
ment increases with the square of the time that has ensued
after it has been told.
Propaganda that looks like Propaganda is third-rate
Propaganda.
Never shove your propagandee to a conclusion he can
reach unaided.
Unless men are very ill or uncomfortable they resist
fears and welcome hopes. The human mind dismisses
fear and accepts and even invents hope with all its
strength. Propaganda that merely threatens achieves
nothing unless it holds out hopes also.
No man will blame himself if there is anyone else
to blame. Never blame your propagandee. Blame his
government, blame his leaders. Never blame ” the
German ” or ” Germany.” Indignation with others is
the natural state of man.’
good post
McColms piece is more to do with him reassuring his targeted readers and himself that the welfare witch hunts wont have an effect on the independence referendum (AKA self delusion) he picks the benefit cap issue which probably is more popular, but ignores the attacks on the disabled
any money that will be saved by cutting benefits will only be passed on in social problems, people who claim benefits are not hording money under their matress
these policy’s appeal to the typical right leaning voter (rare as hens teeth in Scotland)
you cant really fight propaganda you can only highlight it for what it is, if a voter discovers that just one scare story is a scare story then the games up for the propagandist
i also personally think that the unionists overreaching media bias is a massive weakness for the unionist campaign, let them believe their tweaked polls ect (this might be self delusion:)
also alan cochrane in the zany comedy section made me laugh cheers
“I don’t agree with regional benefit caps; after all we don’t have regional tax and regional NI rates”
Income tax and NI wouldn’t be good examples, given that they are already based on ability to pay. Of course some taxes aren’t based on ability to pay, like TV license, but benefits are not based on how much tax you paid while working anyway.
When/if Scotland is independent I’d expect welfare levels to diverge those from in the UK. Maybe BetterTogether will demand that Alex Salmond Pledge that welfare levels will be the same after independence (which would be a risible demand). So the principle of welfare levels differing between Scotland and London I have no problem with. The ‘slippery slope’ argument is I think the only one that makes any sense.
When I kept chinchillas, I found the Scotsman and SoS very useful as litter tray liners. I’d never pay for them either, did my neighbours a favour by collecting their old ones from them!
I see this use is still about the only thing the papers is good for. It’ll be a sad day in chinchilla owners lives when this valuable poo tray liner goes out of business.
I thought the more important trick of McColm’s as you report it, is acknowledging a general ‘fact’ and then undermining it with generalising a specific part.
Sadly I know a few Labour voting unionists that simply cant get enough of this sort of stuff. They lap it up like a cat with cream. If they were looking for volunteers to go around and drag disabled folk kicking and screaming from their homes I am sure that they would be at the front of the queue.
It goes to show how well propaganda like this works especially with a well primed audience Unfortunately the Rev’s excellent analysis wont be read by as many people as it should be. It is up to us to spread the truth and counter the misinformation. “The Real Truth is Out There”
from the syllabus overview of a course on Propaganda
It will appeal to the emotions and avoid abstractions.
It must be as simple as possible so everyone can understand it.
The message may be reduced to a slogan.
It will be constantly repeated.
It will use stereotyped phrasing.
It will give only one side of the story (you may have to dig to find out the other side).
It will point out a “villain” to attack.
It will incessantly criticize and attack its opponents.
It will use distinctive phrases or slogans to label people or events.
Whether something in the propaganda item is true or false is not important, as long as it is believed and works.
The propaganda will evoke emotional responses from the people’s own backgrounds.
Cultural symbols will be used to obtain the emotional responses. Such symbols may be verbal or visual. Posters make great use of symbols.
Good piece Rev.
I see Lord Robertson ex NATO chief in the Sunday Mail today a double page spread with the heading….Who do you think you are kidding Mr Salmond…with reference to Scotland and it inevitable Dads Army effect after independence, Lord Robertson goes on to say how NATO would be reluctant to accept Scotland into its military alliance, annd that (He) Robertson then goes on to say that not one Scots soldier fighting now with the British defence forces wants to join, a Scottish defence force,Lord Robertson, who now advises BP, also said “Unlike a lot of SNP High Heid yins, Ive spoken to the troops, and none think this tiny non expeditionary army is a good idea, Angus Robertson gives a good rebuttal,in a much smaller side coloumn, the piece is writen by Mark Aitken.
Sorry Lord Robertson.
I’m sure servicemen being made redundant by the Westminster Government if asked would jump at the chance to join Scottish military services.
“Lord Robertson goes on to say how NATO would be reluctant to accept Scotland into its military alliance”
Deary me, that’s another unionist defence expert who likes to pretend he’s never heard of the GIUK Gap.
Iceland are full NATO members without even having a standing army. They contributed three (3!) troops from their reservist security force to the coalition which invaded Iraq, unsurprisingly suffering no casualties during the conflict and occupation. But they are full NATO members nevertheless, with no reluctance shown on NATO’s part.
Scotland will have an army, a navy, and an airforce (albeit a small airforce) and forms the Southern strategic point of the GIUK Gap, so why NATO would balk at our membership of the alliance is a mystery.* The reasons are known only by the likes of Grand Field Marshal Robertson and his upstanding, honest allies like Liam Fox.
* Not that I want us to be NATO members, due to Gladio and other problems, but there’s no good reason why we’d be rejected by expansionist bodies who enjoy having influence over as much territory as possible (NATO, EU), especially considering we have been within their spheres of influence for decades now.
Where will they go to practice live-firing depleted uranium shells and bombarding the coastline from shipboard if they decide to kick us out of their lovely wee club?
There is only one thing to be said to anything that George Robertson says or writes.
“Devolution will kill nationalism stone dead”
@BillyBigbaws
Deary me thats another unionist defence expert….
I find it quite astonishing that Lord Robertson, can vouch for every single Scots Soldier when he says not one would join a Scottish Army..and as @Ann says..at a time when, Defence Secretary Phil (The Slasher) Hammond is cutting troop number left right and centre, Lord Robertson also says, that £2.5 Billion quid is nowhere near enough, on military spending, yet Im pretty sure Scotlands military expediture isnt even that amount just now..maybe Im wrong?.
“Is this the piece you saw? (from link Martin posted) -“
The first three of those are from it. Not 100% certain about the other two, but I think they are. And there’s also the “What can be done by open means must not be done by occult means” one, which would make the six.
@Rev-
“What can be done by open means must not be done by occult means”
I could probably count on one hand the number of times in my life I’ve felt a shiver run up my spine, but it happened just there after reading that.
Scary scary stuff…
That McColm misrepresents the truth in a fallacious light (which is just a more sophisticated form of lying, as the Rev points out) is bad enough. But that he does so in order to undermine the compassion of the Scottish people, to suggest that Scots are complicit in the monstrous attacks on the most vulnerable people in society… This is despicable. Truly and utterly abhorrent.
I’m a peaceful individual and never act in violence, but what McColm has said is nothing less than the most profound and cruel attack on the Scottish people one could possibly do nowadays, and may well be one of the few people I would refuse to extend my hand towards in greeting (to say the least). It’s a very special sort of evil to accuse the general populace of being culpable to the crimes of the perpetrators, no less disgusting than the genocidal warlord’s propaganda minister blaming his victims for making it so easy for them.
There are times where I wish I hadn’t read a piece on Wings, or other political blogs, and this is one of those times. I haven’t felt such disgust for a non-politician in quite some time.
@Taranaich-
First the Rev mentions the occult, then you talk of ‘a very special sort of evil’. God only knows what we’re up against.
Here’s one of the scariest things I ever did see – bet they couldn’t do this with CGI.
Don’t Watch Alone!
@Taranaich-
Hope my last post didn’t appear to make light of your concerns.
You are totally right, and I agree with the language you used.
It’s just that, well, maybe some of us are a bit jaded and tend to forget how utterly disgusting some of these people are. The views they profess are indeed ‘evil’ insofar as they deliberately suppress any natural empathy the author may feel.
I worked in a slaughterhouse for a wee while, long time ago. On the way to the interview the boss took us ‘the long way’ to his office. That involved passing through the part of the line where the still-warm skulls of cattle were being disassembled. One lad I passed was nonchalantly dropping eyeballs into a garden-bin already half-full. The fact that we made it to the office without throwing-up was probably why there was no ‘interview’ as-such.
Working in a place like that means you don’t ‘notice’ the smell, you don’t hear the occasional beast ‘screaming’ down at the business-end of the line, and you certainly don’t ponder the entirety of what you’re involved in. You get on with it cause you’ve persuaded yourself that you need the dosh badly enough.
Maybe we’re in a similar business right here – dealing with the real filth? Some of it’s going to rub off, but I do apologise if my comment seemed to disrespect or belittle yours.
Lord ‘Bomber’ Robertson … another Blairite warmonger. These people are representatives of the evil that has blighted the world for 30 years, these grey-suit middle managers of the neo-con cause who paint themselves as ‘envoys’ of peace but only when they’ve gone through several thousand murders of civilians beforehand. It’s amazing how these so-called socialists cosy up to big oil, banks and nuclear after their dirty politics is done with. Into jail with him, Blair and their pals.
@ianbrotherhood: Not at all, no offense taken. In retrospect I might have been a bit dramatic. Funnily enough, I was just watching The Devil Rides Out the other day on TV: evidently evil’s on the mind!
But really, the idea that McColm is intelligent enough to know his sources, yet deliberately twists them so as to paint a country which prides itself on compassion as no better than the government? There are plenty of definitions of evil about, but the deliberate misrepresentation of an entire nation’s people as being supportive of what McColm himself calls “cruelty” and ignoring the “hardest hit” seems to fit the “intentional harm” definition to me.
I subscribe to Arendt’s Banality of Evil general concept, that evil needn’t be some supernatural force or maniacal malevolence, but simply when people step in line and stop caring. At my most charitable, I’d suggest that McColm was at best just doing what journalists do without thinking about how damaging his words could be. Then again, how else could you take a piece which basically says that the people of Scotland are hypocrites using information you must know to be entirely false?
Since I’m here, I think some of the worse extremes of Unionism is very much a case of the Banality of Evil in action. So many people I know – friends, family – might still vote No despite my best efforts, because they’ve lived their whole lives thinking that as bad as the government is, they’re the state, so they must be doing something right. All the evils of the state are so commonplace they’ve become normalised – unchallenged for so long, the very idea of challenging them has become strange and threatening. Hence how so many people can just keep voting these miserable creatures in.
Have long thought that The Scotsman and Herald are being subsudised by Westminster
Dcanmore
Into jail with him, Blair and their pals.
Unfortunately, it would seem he is ‘too rich’ to go to jail. However, I would thoroughly recommend that he be put on a deportation list should he ever try to set foot in an Independent Scotland.