Follow me on Twitter

Friday 15 June 2018

A lie is halfway round the world before the truth gets its boots on (pt2)

I like a bit of symmetry in my social media content. So, after Tuesday's post about how fake news outruns truth on Twitter, I’m following up with an example of a bit of ‘truth’ that’s taken nearly half a century to catch up with an apparently false cultural idea. You may be familiar with the ‘infamous’ Stanford Prison experiments of the 1970s? These ethically dubious experiments saw students voluntarily incarcerated in a mock prison, policed by ‘mock’ student prison guards. Soon into the experiment the mock guards began mistreating the volunteer prisoners. A chilling conclusion drawn from the study was that even ‘normal’ people tend to abuse their power over others, given a certain set of circumstances. But a new French documentary blows the lid off the 46-year-old experiment. The film includes in-depth interviews with students and academics who were there. Is the truth finally catching up with the ‘fake’ findings of the Stanford Prison experiment, nearly half a century after its findings became embedded in western cultural lore? Blog is here: https://lnkd.in/gPqpccX

Tuesday 12 June 2018

A lie is halfway round the world before the truth gets its boots on (pt1)

Finally we have proof! A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has its boots on. This MIT research finds that false news travels faster on Twitter, by orders of magnitude, than 'truth' (though 'truth', as ever, is probably doing alot of heavy lifting here). Interestingly it's not robots spreading disinformation at an exponential rate, it's us. And what does the research conclude makes people engage with false stories more easily? Yes, you're right: emotion. There's strong research in the area of 'affective intelligence ' that's been saying this for a while now. Research is here

Friday 8 June 2018

What are campaigning charities really afraid of?

Something that interests me is the disparity between mainstream charity campaigning and politically-motivated campaigns, on the right.

I was prompted to think about this again in the wake of yet more research about the impact the Lobbying Act has had on charity campaigns. The Sheila McKechnie Foundation, finds 90%  of charities blaming the Lobbying Act for having a chilling effect on their campaigning activity, forcing them to avoid being critical of government on contentious issues like welfare reform, for example.
This phrase in the report jarred with me in particular:
“Ultimately, it is up to the Government as the accountable body for such freedoms and regulations, to ensure that the interaction of policies and legislation do not unreasonably constrain what civil society may speak into public life, and how.”
But a cursory glance at the actions, activities and networks around organisations like the Taxpayers Alliance reveals that some campaigners are clearly feeling none of the ‘chill’ that is paralyzing mainstream charities and NGOs.

A further quote from the SMK report, this time from the Salvation Army included an incredible (for me) assumption about the 'public imagination' when it comes to campaigning. 
“The original intention of the Lobbying Act was good, but the public imagination now says that any attempt to influence is illegitimate. But an uninfluenced democracy is a dictatorship. There’s danger that the voluntary sector makes itself illegitimate by ceasing to influence. We see influence as good as long as it is transparent.”
(The Salvation Army)
Of course transparency matters. But what is this public imagination the Salvation Army speaks of? Is there evidence people actually think charity campaigns are illegitimate? Is it real or in the mind of the Salvation Army’s own campaigns team?
For sure the media does seem more critical of charities these days, but this isn't entirely unjustified, given recent issues around fundraising and safeguarding affecting charities and NGOs. It is also true that certain right wing campaigns (for example, the IEA) have played a role in creating an air of skepticism about the advocacy work charities do. 

But huge public support for campaigns like Stop Funding Hate and the groundswell behind movements like Momentum would appear to contradict the notion that the public has lost faith in campaigning.

Perhaps certain charity campaigners have lost faith in themselves? Perhaps the public has simply lost faith in certain charities?

Friday 1 June 2018

Back to the future for Onwards: a new think tank for t'yoof

It’s been a dazzling few weeks in Westminster village think tank world with tanks close to Conservative Party MPs continuing to make the biggest waves (where do they get their money from?).
‘Onward’ with its plethora of ex-Policy Exchange hands, is the interesting new outfit on the block. But what’s driving this spontaneous flowering of Conservative wonkery? 
It's t’yoof innit? 

The Huffington Post reckons:
‘…many [Tory] MPs realise that unless they can appeal to younger voters the election after the next one could be disastrous.’

So who better to lead this new generation of “second hand dealers in ideas” than…. Michael Gove MP!! 
It's not like he’s been a more-or-less ever present cabinet minister for eight years is it? And as a massive Brexiteer, he'll easily endear himself to young people, surely.
And to top it off, Michael was himself young once.

Here he is on TV in the 80s… being youthful.


Micky will, of course, be partnered by that saviour of Scottish Conservatism, Ruth Davidson.

Anyway, for me it's the collection of ex Policy Exchange staffers, trustees and associated fellow travellers that's notable about this new 'Onwards' outfit (The Times' Sam Coates noted it, the Guido blag noted it too). Former Policy Exchange Trustee Lord 'finger on the pulse of yoof' Finkelstein has apparently signed up, though he's been coy about out it on Twitter, imo. 

Back to the future?
Ex Policy Exchange Comms head, Nigel Faith, is chief among the luminaries heading up this new forward-looking thinky tanky thing. Faith left Policy Exchange to set up lobbying company WPI. There he was joined by ‘respected economist and policy expert’  Matt Oakley, the architect of Iain Duncan Smith’s benefit sanctions policy. A policy which, new research, has [again] confirmed has been an absolute catastrophe for young people. Oakley himself formerly worked for Policy Exchange. See Donkey passim.

Another WPI staffer is Guy Miscampbell, someone who seems to be really likeable on social media. Back in 2014, Guy wrote a paper (you guessed it for..... Policy Exchange!) on benefit sanctions. The paper was heavily criticised by academic Dr David Webster a respected benefit sanctions academic, see Donkey passim.
(In passing – and for no other reason than mischief – I must also draw the reader’s attention to another member of the team at WPI – John 'Come to Peckham and say that' McTernan – mastermind of Labour’s 2015 Scottish General Election campaign. The south London slugger is listed as an ‘associate’ at WPI.)

So it’s great to see ‘Onward’ adopting such a forward looking recruitment strategy. I'm sure it will it will soon have much to commend itself by way of further immiserating t’yoof over the coming years.