Showing posts with label Advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Advertising. Show all posts

Sunday, 11 June 2017

11 General Election 2017 issues that mustn't be allowed to drop


A lot of the post-election focus has (understandably) been on Theresa May's efforts to cling onto power by throwing members of her inner circle under the public opinion bus and sucking up to the most extreme political party in parliament, but we mustn't forget some major issues from the campaign.

All of these issues need to be addressed

1. Security
During the election extreme security lapses led to two avoidable terrorist atrocities.

One was committed by an Islamist fanatic known to be plotting a terror attack against the UK who was allowed to come back through the UK border and was left unwatched as he planned and executed his attack.

The ringleader of the next was such a well known extremist he'd even featured in a Channel 4 documentary called "The Jihadists next door".


During the election Theresa May refused to release the report into the funding of terrorist networks in the UK, presumably because it allegedly implicates Saudi Arabia.

The extreme security lapses can't just be allowed to pass because they happened during an election and everyone was focused on campaigning, and serious pressure needs to be applied to get the government to admit what they know about foreign funding of terrorist networks in the UK.

2. The Naylor Report
If it wasn't for a citizen journalist called Chris Holden few of us would ever have considered the contents of the Naylor Report that Theresa May was championing. 

It's basically a plot to use public money to bribe hospitals into selling their land off on the cheap to property speculators, and if they don't take the bribe they get their funding slashed.

It's nothing less than Tory asset stripping of the NHS.

There needs to be a concerted effort to oppose the implementation of the Naylor Report.

3. Dark ads
The Tories ran an unprecedented campaign of dark ads, spending millions on spewing their propaganda all over social media, front loading Youtube songs with political attack adverts, and hijacking political Google searches with paid ads.

There are several things to consider.

In my view the specific targeting of particular voters in particular constituencies with dark ads should surely be declared under local, rather than national campaign budgets.


There should be an absolute requirement that copies of every political advert are lodged with the electoral authorities.Many of these Tory adverts (including the one they used to hijack Google searches for the Labour manifesto) contained outright lies about opposition parties and politicians. The electoral authorities really need to explain to the public what they intend to do to stop the dissemination of outright political lies.

Additionally steps should be taken to ensure that no political party is allowed to hijack legitimate Google searches by paying for sponsored ads at the top of the search.


4. Lying politicians
Aside from the campaign of Tory dark ads, numerous Tory politicians were guilty of outright lying to the British public. Theresa May herself told a couple of absolute whoppers.

Theresa May outright lied about Diane Abbott's stance on the DNA database (she doesn't want it scrapped, she wants the DNA of innocent people, including victims of crime, removed from it).

May also lied that Labour proposes "uncontrolled immigration", when in reality their manifesto pledged clampdowns on all kinds of harmful migration and increased funding of services for areas that have had large immigration influxes (see here) and is actually far more sensible than the Tory approach of recycling their twice-broken promise to reduce immigration to an arbitrary number.


After Brexit and now this, something really needs to be done to prevent our politicians from deliberately lying to us.

5. Yes First Strike
One of the most bizarre aspects of the General Election debate was the way Jeremy Corbyn was repeatedly rounded on by the public and the mainstream media for his sensible No First Strike nuclear weapons policy, but Theresa May wasn't hauled over the coals at all about the announcement of a crackpot Tory Yes First Strike nuclear policy.

I oppose nuclear weapons, but I at least understand the nuclear deterrent argument people put forward in favour of them. Yes First Strike makes no such sense. It's total and utter madness that would, in times of global conflict, actually significantly increase the chances of a nuclear strike against London in order to eradicate the insane strike first leader before they themselves launch a nuclear attack.

The Tory government needs to be pressed a lot more on Theresa May's Yes First Strike nuclear policy because I'm pretty sure that public opinion would be strongly against Britain being the country to trigger Armageddon by using nukes as attack weapons.

6. Austerity
Tory austerity dogma resulted in the slowest recovery from a recession since the South Sea Bubble burst in the 18th Century, the lowest level of house building since the early 1920s, the worst wage collapse since records began, and the least affordable house prices in history.

Not only that, but we've been getting left behind on the world stage because the Tories have been investing far less in infrastructure development (the foundations of future economic prosperity) than any other developed nation because of the Tories' ideological fixation with their economically inept and self-defeating cost-cutting exercises.

For seven ruinous years the mainstream media has pitifully failed to hold the Tories to account over their ideological fixation with austerity dogma. But after more voters supported anti-austerity parties than pro-austerity parties in this election, surely now is the time for austerity dogma to be subjected to proper public scrutiny, especially at the supposedly impartial BBC?

7. Dementia Tax
The Tories' depraved policy of asset stripping people who need social care has not gone away. They've simply announced that there will be a limit on how much wealth they can extract from frail old people and other disabled people. They've not said how much that limit would be, nor whether it would be an overall cap (a weak incentive to suicide) or an annual limit that rolls over indefinitely (a strong incentive to suicide).

Questions need to be asked about the details that Theresa May failed to disclose, and also over the morality of the policy.  How is it remotely justifiable to asset strip frail old people whilst simultaneously giving tens of £billions in handouts to corporations and your mega-rich chums?

8. Tory self-interest
Theresa May could have maintained political power until 2020, but she clearly and undeniably put her own self-interest above the good of the nation by calling a snap election when her poll lead was at an all-time high.

Instead of conducting Brexit amicably (taking the views of opposition parties and devolved governments into consideration and forming some kind of UK-wide consensus) she wanted to 
crush all political opposition to be crowned the undisputed Brexit queen to dictate the whole process herself.

After the failure of David Cameron's EU referendum gamble (wagered in order to poach a few hundred thousand UKIP voters in 2015), Theresa May's vanity election is the second time in a single year that the Tories have thrown the nation into chaos by putting their own opportunistic self-interest first.

It's now abundantly clear that the Tory party simply can't be trusted to consider the good of the nation as a whole above the self-serving opportunism of their leaders.

9. Press corruption
One of Theresa May's most despicable manifesto pledges was to sling the Leveson investigation into press corruption into the bin as if Rupert Murdoch's minions had never hacked into the phone of a murdered teenage girl.

During the election the billionaire-owned propaganda rags went into absolute overdrive with an unprecedented smear-mongering campaign against Labour.

Thankfully the smear-mongering tactics didn't pay off and deliver Theresa May the super-majority she was expecting when she called her vanity election, but the malign influence of the billionaire press barons was still enough to help her avoid a resounding defeat, which means there's still the possibility that the Tories will try to bin the Leveson investigation as a favour to their faithful mainstream media attack dogs.

The astoundingly biased smear-mongering conducted by certain publications during the election is another important reason that the investigation into press corruption absolutely mustn't be dropped.


10. Internet freedom
Theresa May is obsessed with controlling the Internet. Even after the woeful security lapses that led to murderous acts of barbarism during the election campaign, her initial response was to piggyback her pre-existing authoritarian fixation onto the atrocities by harking on about censoring the Internet.

Theresa May doesn't like the freedom of the Internet because it allows people to think outside the constraints of the neoliberal consensus that she is the figurehead of.

All the talk about preventing terrorism is just a front for her extreme-surveillance agenda. If she actually gave a crap about terrorism then she wouldn't have ignored all the expert advice
(community engagement is the very first defence against Islamist and extreme-right radicalisation) and ploughed on with her plan to devastate community policing by scrapping 20,000 police jobs.

11. Human rights
Theresa May didn't just opportunistically piggyback her hatred of Internet freedom onto the terrorist atrocities that happened under her watch, she also tried to infect the debate with her visceral hatred of our human rights.

She's so incapable of thinking things through that she doesn't even understand that the destruction of our western justice-based human rights would be seen as a massive ideological victory for the Islamist extremists.

These depraved fanatics absolutely hate our liberal values and our non-Sharia justice systems. If we scrapped our human rights after one suicide bombing and a couple of sick rampages through the streets of London, they'd obviously see it as a huge victory and wonder what more could be achieved with a more concerted and coordinated sequence of attacks.



What we can do

Write to your MP:

If you have an opposition MP you can ask them what their party intends to do to hold the Tories to account over these 11 issues (feel free to include a link if you want to raise all 11 issues, or copy and paste from this blog if you intend to raise one or just a few specific issues).

If you have a Tory MP you can write to them and ask them to provide explanations. I'd be interested to see what they come up with to defend all of this hideous stuff.

Write to your MP here (remember to include your name and postal address and then they have an obligation to reply to your message)


Contact mainstream media:

Get in touch with mainstream media publications to request more coverage on these issues. Submit contributions to their letters pages. Contact individual mainstream media journalists that you respect and ask them if they would consider working to shed more public light on any of these subjects.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Saturday, 10 June 2017

Theresa May's vanity election was a disaster for the Tory party


The unprecedented scale and ferocity of the Tory smear-mongering campaign did just enough to stop the Labour surge from propelling Jeremy Corbyn into 10 Downing Street (the election swung on a few hundred thousand votes in marginal constituencies) but Theresa May's vanity election has backfired spectacularly. 

Not only is she now reliant on a bunch of Northern Irish extremists (who make what remains of UKIP look sane and sensible in comparison), these outrageous smear-mongering tactics have created a demographic time bomb for the Tory party.


When Theresa May called her vanity election she massively underestimated Jeremy Corbyn, and she massively underestimated the power of social media too.

She thought that she could browbeat the public into hating Corbyn by spewing £millions upon £millions worth of attack ads all over social media, but although effective on some people, a sponsored political ad has a tiny fraction of the persuasive impact of something that's been shared by an actual friend.

You can't just buy success on social media, you have to make it naturally.


Theresa May was also helped out by the depraved hacks who work for the billionaire tax-dodging press barons. These Tory attack dogs held her to account over absolutely nothing (her extraordinary public safety failures that resulted in the Manchester and London Bridge, her cowardice, her shambles of an uncosted manifesto, her evasiveness, her plan to feed our school kids 7p breakfasts, her outright and provable lies about Diane Abbott and Labour's immigration policies) because they were 100% focused on slinging as many insults, abusive comments, misrepresentations, smears and outright lies as possible at Jeremy Corbyn and Labour.

Just look at the state of the Daily Mail. 13 consecutive pages of anti-Labour smears, and not one single positive reason to vote Tory!
Yes, millions of people were duped by this kind of shockingly biased smear-mongering, but the problem for for the Tories is that millions upon millions of people also saw through the savage Tory propaganda campaign, especially the under-45s who almost all have access to the Internet and to immediate rebuttals of the Tory lies.

People who were duped into voting Tory by a campaign of lies and smears can be snapped out of it. Of course it won't be easy, but it's surely possible to get through to the several million of them who are not the kind of permanent Tory tribalists who would still vote blue even if the party was led by Abu Hamza.

The Labour vote rose by an incredible 3.5 million, bolstered by a significant increase in the youth turnout. This 3.5 million may not stay with Labour forever, but one thing is for sure, they're not going to be turning out to vote Tory any time soon.

Once you've realised that someone is lying through their teeth to you, it's almost impossible for them to win your trust back.

What Theresa May's extreme muck-slinging campaign has done is created a significant demographic of politically engaged anti-Tory voters who are very attuned to spotting political lies.

The gullible people who allowed themselves to be conned into voting against their own interests by the Tory smears and lies can possibly be won over in the future because the number of people reading newspapers is declining every year, and the number of people using social media for their news is still growing rapidly as smartphones become the norm.

It's also worth noting that quite a lot of the frightened pensioner demographic the Tory smear-mongering campaign was most effective on will die before the next election.


Those of us who saw through the concerted campaign of lies and smears by the Tory party and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media will be lifelong anti-Tory voters, with a very healthy distrust of the mainstream media too.

Throwing away a 24/25% poll lead in seven weeks was an absolute disaster for the Tory party, and their depraved smear-mongering tactics will be even less effective the next time around for the reasons outlined above.

Theresa May's vanity election has done more than just force the Tories into bed with the DUP fanatics, it's also seriously damaged their chances of clinging onto power at the next election (whenever that may be).

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

Sorry about the clickbait


I recently logged onto Another Angry Voice from a browser without any Ad Blocker extensions and was horrified to find my site blathered in appalling Taboola sponsored clickbait links.

This clickbait rubbish was added to my site automatically (and without my consent) by the external Disqus system I use to host the site's comments threads. I've looked into it and they'd apparently been adding these appalling Taboola sponsored clickbait links to Another Angry Voice since some time in mid September 2016.


I have adjusted the Disqus settings to get rid of the clickbait now, but I am very disappointed that they have damaged my reputation by adding sponsored clickbait adverts to my site without my explicit consent.

I adopted the "Pay as You Feel" subscription model for my site for a number of specific reasons*, so finding out that my site has been blathered in sponsored clickbait for several weeks is very annoying indeed. It made me look like a fool and a hypocrite to have article footers explaining my "Pay as You Feel" principles beneath each article, only to be immediately followed by a load of vacuous sponsored clickbait links.

When I looked into it, it turns out that I've apparently earned $14.40 for all of the clicks on these links, not that Disqus ever established any way to actually pay me this money. If just one person decided to cancel their £1 per month Another Angry Voice subscription because of these clickbait links, then all of that "profit" will have been cancelled out within a year or so.

I'd guess that more than one person cancelled their subscriptions because of it. I've seen a spate of recent cancellations, and I fully understand if people cancelled their subscriptions because of the clickbait. I'd certainly consider cancelling my subscription to a website if they suddenly started displaying utterly vacuous sponsored clickbait rubbish at me.

If I can actually be bothered to figure out how to actually claim this $14.40 then I'll give it to charity. I don't want their crappy Taboola clickbait money.

I apologise to anyone who found the sponsored clickbait links on my site annoying or thought that I was being a hypocrite. I assure you these links were added without my consent, that I removed them as soon as I could, and that if Disqus ever inject crappy clickbait links onto my site again I'll replace them with another comments system.



 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

* = The reason I prefer the "Pay as You Feel" funding model is that I feel it's important to show that it's possible to run a successful blog without resorting to blathering it in targeted adverts (ads that show you exactly the kind of products or services you were looking for on the Internet a few days ago) and clickbait links. Additionally, if someone like me who promotes heterodox economics uses an orthodox ads and clickbait model for funding his website, what hope is there that anything can actually change?

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

Why headlines are important


That S*n headline

On November 23rd 2015 the S*n lead with the appallingly misleading headline "1 in 5 Brit Muslims' sympathy for jihadis" when the actual question they based this shock headline on made no mention of jihadis or Islamist fanatics of any description. What it actually asked was whether respondents had sympathy towards anyone going to fight in Syria (which includes ISIS, but also the anti-Assad Syrian Free Army and the anti-ISIS Kurdish led Syrian Democratic Forces). What is more, the poll also revealed that 1 in 7 of the general UK population expressed similar general sympathies towards people going to fight in Syria, meaning that there is actually very little difference between the opinions of British Muslims and those of the general British public.

A more accurate headline might have read "According to a poll based on the very dubious methodology of trawling the Survation database for Muslim sounding names it turns out that British Muslims are very marginally more likely to express sympathy for people going to fight for or against ISIS in the Syrian civil war than the general British public are" but then that surely wouldn't have sold as many papers as the blatantly misleading headline they ran with.

Aside from stripping out the desired anti-Muslim fearmongering the Murdoch empire deem necessary in the wake of the Paris atrocities, such an accurate headline would be unthinkable because it's obviously far too long to scan. As an independent Blogger one of the most difficult things is coming up with short snappy article titles that will accurately describe the contents and incentivise people to actually click on the link. I'll freely admit that tabloid news teams are much better at coming up with snappy and/or humourous titles than I am. Probably the best ones I ever came up with was "Tories sell NHS blood supply to vampire capitalists" back in 2013 and the incredibly clickbaity "Don't Read This Article" earlier in 2015.


My Church of England headline

After addressing the appallingly misleading nature of the S*n headline with an infographic, later that day I posted an article about the DCM Cinema group refusing to allow the screening of the Church of England's Lord's Prayer advert. This article provoked quite an uproar with one of the main recurring complaints being that it was unacceptably misleading to use the word "banned" to describe the decision to not allow the advert to be shown.

Numerous people complained that my use of the word "banned" was inaccurate/misleading, and others became so upset that they claimed they'd lost all respect for me, and that the credibility of the rest of my work had been destroyed. In my view these kinds of statements were huge over-reactions, especially from people who were trying to take the rational high ground. However people are entitled to their views, even if their main complaint of inaccuracy relies on some kind of semantic point about how "banned" is a totally unacceptable word to describe "the prevention of something being shown".

To give an example of why I consider the word banned to be appropriate here's a question: If I write a set of rules saying "no Christmas music is allowed in my house" (then justify the house rules by releasing a statement about how it's not to be allowed because some people might find it offensive), have I "banned" Christmas music from my house or not?

Apparently some people would argue that I haven't, and furthermore that anyone saying that I had would be guilty of respect-destroying levels of inaccuracy!

I did try to consider what the objection was, and whether there was something more to it than some kind of semantic point about "banned" being an outrage-inducingly inappropriate synonym for "prevented", "prohibited", "forbidden", "stopped", or whatever other word people would have preferred me to use, but I still can't see how my use of the word "banned" provoked such a furious response.


The reason I found this fixation on the word "banned" so disappointing is that surely people can come up with stronger criticisms of my article, or defences of the ban on religious adverts than what appears to be nothing more than a semantic point about the use of a single word?

What I did get wrong

Having looked at the headline again for some time (to try to figure out why it made so many people so angry), I have spotted something that I could have changed to make it more accurate, but it's not actually my use of the word banned at all, it's the context in which it's used. What I wrote was "The Church of England advert that has been banned ..."  when a more accurate interpretation of events might have been to write "The Church of England advert that is banned ..." .

The difference being that it is possible to read "has been banned" as an implication that the decision by DCM to ban the religious advert in their cinemas has only just been taken, while the use of "is banned" more accurately describes the actual situation where the advert was not allowed to be aired in UK cinemas due to pre-existing rules, but that these rules were then justified with a statement about how adverts from religious groups are not allowed in DCM cinemas in case certain cinema goers get offended by them. This "people might get offended" justification was the actual crux of the article but it received so much less attention than my use of the word banned in the headline.

Why headlines are important


Headlines are particularly important because so many people read no further than the headline. The circulation of The S*n has now dipped below two million, but millions more people will have seen that misleading front page headline on news stands, in canteens, on public transport, in waiting rooms or in family homes. In my view it's doubtful whether more than 20% of the people who saw the misleading headline actually read the whole article, and it's doubtful whether 0.2% of the people who read the headline ended up looking up the Survation poll that the misleading headline was supposedly based on and checking the wording of the actual question for themselves.

Similarly with my blog post about the Church of England advert, my Facebook statistics tell me that my post (including the headline image and link to the article) was seen over 288,000 times in Facebook news feeds, and my blog statistics tell me that only* 27,000 odd people actually clicked the link to see what the article actually said.

Most of the people who see any of my articles will not click on them, which is fair enough. I certainly don't click on all of the articles I see going across my Facebook news feed either.

I know from my statistics that if I get my headline wrong, it doesn't matter how good the article is, people won't click on it and it will only get read by a tiny percentage of people who see it (sometimes below 1%). If I get it right then it will get clicked on by a much higher percentage of people, shared, and eventually read by tens, or even hundreds of thousands of people.

Lessons


One of the lessons I've learned from the reaction to my headline is that there is more to writing a good one than quickly typing some text into a box because you're in a hurry to get your article published. Another is that it's important to state things in ways they can't be misconstrued (deliberately or otherwise) because if I word my headline wrong it's clearly possible that comments from people addressing the actual contents of the article will be completely drowned out under a tide of complaints from people who object to the headline.

Another thing I've learned is that when people are upset they say utterly bizarre things, like people comparing my use of the word "banned" to describe a situation where something is not allowed to be shown with the appallingly misleading Muslim fearmongering headline in the S*n earlier that day.

Apparently some people are prepared to argue that some lone-wolf blogger using the word "banned" instead of "prevented" (or whatever word they would have preferred) in the title of an article read by fewer than 27,000 people is somehow the direct equivalent of the editors of Britain's most widely read newspaper deciding to run a totally misleading headline, seen and believed by countless millions of people, and apparently devised with the objective of stirring up anti-Muslim hatred in the wake of the Paris atrocities (making the S*n editors who gave it the green light guilty of fighting the ISIS propaganda war for them by creating divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims).

Of course I'll aspire to be more accurate in the way I phrase things when it comes to thinking up headlines from now on and I thank anyone who pointed out their objections in a polite, reasonable and non-hyperbolic manner for their input. However I'm not taking such a stance because of the flood of extremely negative reactions to the title of my article, I'm doing it despite them.

Having so many people say that they've "lost all respect" for me, attacking my credibility, slinging insults at me, misrepresenting what I actually said, completely ignoring the majority of points I raised in the article, and even comparing my work to the anti-Muslim fearmongering of the S*n was a bit of an onslaught, but it definitely won't deter me from writing about what I want to. In fact it actually makes me far more inclined to write something else that these people will dislike just to prove to myself that I won't by silenced from expressing my own opinions, no matter how many people try to shout me down or make insulting comparisons between my work and the appalling anti-Muslim fearmongering of Rupert Murdoch's vast propaganda empire.

I'll just have to make more effort to ensure my headlines are not as easily misconstrued so that a higher percentage of any complaints end up addressing the actual content of the article, not the wording of the headline.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.



* = My use of the word "only" to describe 27,000 hits does seem a little churlish for a couple of reasons. 27,000 hit from 288,000 views is a hit rate of almost 10% which is actually pretty good, suggesting that the headline was interesting enough to get a significantly above average number of people to actually click on it. It also seems churlish because I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of independent bloggers out there who would be delighted with 27,000 hits on one of their articles.




MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
The "banned" Church of England advert
           
Bigotry and cowardice in the Republican Party

           
The incompatibility of Christian ethics and modern Conservatism
                     
The Church of England and poverty
       

Richard Dawkins and the slave trade
                             
Richard Dawkins and the far-right extremists
                
12 Things you should know about Britain First
                      



Monday, 23 November 2015

About that banned Church of England advert


Someone at the Church of England had the bright idea of creating a short advert about praying to be shown in cinemas before the new Star Wars film this winter. The advert is nothing more than a selection of people saying one line each from the Lord's Prayer and then some publicity for their Just Pray website.

Unfortunately for the Church of England, the company that runs advertising in most of the cinemas in the UK decided to ban the advert on the grounds that some cinema goers might be offended by it. DCM (the company that made the decision not to show the advert in their UK cinemas) said that it's their policy not to show adverts from religious groups because "some advertisements - unintentionally or otherwise - could cause offence to those of differing political persuasions, as well as to those of differing faiths and indeed of no faith". That's a pretty clear explanation that the advert will not be shown in case it causes offence.


It's not so much the policy of not allowing religious groups to buy advertising space that I object to, it's the justification of that policy on the grounds that people might get offended.

I've included an embedded video of the advert so you can make up your own mind if it's offensive, then beneath it there's some further analysis.





The first thing to note is that the advert is clearly not even remotely offensive. There is nothing inherently offensive about The Lord's Prayer, praying in general or a peaceful organisation trying to spread public awareness of their work. Anyone who gets all offended by this must be the kind of permanently offended attention seeker who pisses pretty much everyone off, and so often give liberally minded people a terrible reputation with their unwarranted whinging into the bargain.

I'm pretty surprised that I'm actually in agreement with two people I often strongly disagree with. Richard Dawkins (the famous atheist and Twitter shit-stirrer) said that the advert should not be censored and that anyone who gets offended by the advert "deserves to be offended". David Cameron has also spoken out against the ban. It's pretty rare that I agree with either of them, let alone both of them at the same time!

I'm not, and never have been a member of the Church of England, however I do know and respect several people who are. I remember resenting being made to actually say the Lord's Prayer in school because I didn't think anybody should be forced to say anything against their will, especially not kids in publicly funded schools. However this advert doesn't force anyone to actually say the Lord's Prayer, so I have no objection to it at all.

What I do have a strong objection to is the commercialisation of Christmas, and the ever increasing duration of the Christmas advertising period. I'm irritated by the idea that we have to endure Christmas advertising from all manner of rapacious corporations all the way from the end of October (or even earlier) through to January every single year, while we're now prevented from seeing an advert that actually references the belief system that actually underpins Christmas.

I'm not saying corporations should be banned from making Christmas adverts, of course they shouldn't. But what kind of insane society are we living in where corporations can use a Christian festival to make juicy profits for themselves, but actual Christians are prevented from spreading awareness of their work with just about the least offensive advert imaginable?


Conclusion
  
As I said before I'm not a member of the Church of England. In fact I'm often a vocal critic of organised dogmatic religion. However I'm not happy about the way this advert has been banned because not only does it seem to be an attack on freedom of expression, but also because it paints a depressing picture of an insane society where Christianity is egregiously commercialised in order to sell products and make profits, but cannot be expressed in and for itself.

I think it's unlikely the cinemas groups will overturn their decision to censor the Church of England, so probably the best thing to do is leave a link for the Just Pray website that these major UK cinema groups don't want you to know about so that you have the choice to check it out for yourself if you want to.

It doesn't matter if you're not Church of England, or not religious at all, some of the countless prayers people have left on there are worth reading. Even if you don't find any of them moving, they'll definitely provide an interesting insight into the mentality of people with religious faith. 


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.





Flattr this




MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
Bigotry and cowardice in the Republican Party
           
The incompatibility of Christian ethics and modern Conservatism
                     
The Church of England and poverty
       

Richard Dawkins and the slave trade
                             
Richard Dawkins and the far-right extremists
                
12 Things you should know about Britain First
                      



Saturday, 3 November 2012

The end of the British Transit van

In October 2012 Ford announced that they are to close their last remaining vehicle manufacturing plant in the UK. The move to close the Transit van factory in Southampton will put an end to more than 100 years of Ford vehicle production in the UK. The closure will result in 500 job losses in Southampton and a further 600 losses at the Ford Dagenham plant, which supplies the Transit van parts.

Ford justified their decision to shift production of Britain's favourite van to their Kocaeli plant in Turkey by claiming that production costs are "significantly lower" in Turkey, than elsewhere in Europe. This will be of scant consolation to the hundreds of Ford workers and their families thrown into uncertainty and poverty by this move, not to mention the hundreds of other supply and service industry workers that will adversely effected by this closure. One hopes that any extra profits Ford make by shifting production to Turkey will be cancelled out as loyal Transit van drivers switch their allegiances to makes and models that are still produced by UK workers.

The unions have described the closure plans as a betrayal of the Southampton workforce and called on the government to fight the closure. here's what Len McCluskey, the General Secretary of Unite said:
"Only a few months ago Ford was promising staff a new Transit model for Southampton in 2014. The planned closures will really hurt the local economies and the supply chain will be badly hit - up to 10,000 jobs could be at risk...The Transit has been the best-selling van in the UK for over a quarter of a century. It has a future in the UK if this Government is prepared to fight for real jobs and persuade Ford to keep manufacturing vehicles in the UK."
This union plea to the Tory led coalition is nothing but another example of the absurd optimism of "the left", the Tory track record is an absolutely clear demonstration that they simply don't give a damn about British manufacturing, preferring instead to maintain their absurd fantasies about Britain becoming a "post-industrial economy" based around the City of London financial sector. Given the openly venomous hatred of the unions amongst the Conservative party leadership and rank and file Tories alike, a union plea to save the Southampton plant would probably only have the effect of inspiring the Tories to implore Ford to speed up the closure.

Since Transit van production was established in the UK back in 1972, more than 2.18 million of the iconic vehicles have rolled off British production lines. When I was a kid in the 1980s my Dad used to drop me off at primary school in his old style Ford Transit on his way to work. When I worked in construction I spent many thousands of hours in Transit vans and I even owned my own £500 Transit van for a while, a tired but reliable old beast with 245,000 miles on the clock, that had averaged more than 70 miles a day, every day, since she had rolled off the production line in Southampton ten years previously. I've probably spent more hours in Transit vans than any other make of vehicle and I feel a real affinity for them.

The Transit is an iconic vehicle, and Ford cashed in on this iconic status with a series of adverts that described the Transit Van as "the backbone of Britain". By 2013 all Transit van production will have been shifted to Turkey. I wonder if they will relaunch their "backbone of Britain" slogan as: British backbones, now manufactured in Turkey.

Wednesday, 19 September 2012

What is confirmation bias?



Confirmation bias is a a form of cognitive bias,which often manifests as an inability or unwillingness to spot faults in arguments with which we agree.

One of the classic examples of confirmation bias is the tendency to cherry-pick evidence. It has been repeatedly shown in experiments that people generally test hypotheses in a very one-sided way, by deliberately searching for evidence consistent with the hypotheses they find agreeable and neglecting evidence that conflicts with their worldview.

Another classic example is the persistence of discredited belief. Take the neoliberal theory of "trickle-down economics" as an example. Neoliberals argued that a minority of people should be allowed to develop extreme wealth so that the wealth would then trickle down to wider society. The economic evidence is absolutely clear that this effect never happened and that in fact the opposite is true; that allowing a minority to develop extreme wealth, massively widens the gap between the rich and the ordinary (because the wealthy elite often just hire tax lawyers to ensure that their wealth ends up stashed in personal accounts in tax-havens rather than allowing it to "trickle away" to wider society). Despite the wealth of concrete evidence that the trickle down effect is a myth, many people still believe in it because it suits their worldview and provides them with (pseudo) economic justification for their greed.

Everyone suffers from confirmation bias to a certain extent. It is always easier to spot errors in statements we find disagreeable than it is to find errors in statements we like.

"That seems wrong; in what way is it wrong?" is a perfectly natural though process, however on the face of it "that seems right, how is it wrong?" seems like an absurd though process. I believe that the fact that humanity has been able to recognise and develop the second state has been one of the key driving forces in human advancement. To give a crude example; the scientist that tends to critically appraise the commonly accepted model (that seems right, how is it wrong?) is far more likely to end up devising a groundbreaking and superior new model than the scientist that instinctively prefers models that form part of the established paradigm, and reserves their criticism for unorthodox ideas (That seems wrong; in what way is it wrong?).

It shouldn't matter whether we agree with a hypothesis or not; from an unbiased and objective point of view, the most important thing to consider should be whether the subject matter is rational and coherent. Is it backed by facts, logic, reason, empirical evidence? Or by simplistic generalisations, anecdotal evidence, unsubstantiated opinion, fallacious argument strategies?

In order to adopt a more rational, objective stance it is particularly important to strive to find errors in statements with which one generally agrees, since the mind tends to instinctively deconstruct disagreeable statements and blithely accept agreeable ones. In order to overcome confirmation bias and maintain objectivity one must actively strive to critique agreeable subject matter in a similar way to which we naturally tend to critique the disagreeable. If we give in to the natural tendency to subject disagreeable subject matter to much greater levels of scrutiny, we allow ourselves to create an increasingly subjective worldview.

Politicians and the media thrive on this human tendency to form subjective worldviews by providing a steady supply of simplistic justification narratives for their favoured policies. As long as they can get the basic narrative right, it doesn't really matter how much empirical evidence they go on to provide, since huge numbers of people will blithely accept an agreeable narrative because of confirmation bias.

To give an example: People generally don't like unfairness, so they find the idea that they must work hard whilst others laze around "scrounging off the state" acutely disagreeable.  In the UK the Tories and the right-wing press play up to this sentiment by grotesquely exaggerating the number of "benefits scroungers" any downplaying (or completely ignoring) the fact that their own favoured austerity policies have actually increased unemployment and under-employment by reducing the amount of demand in the economy. Once the "scroungers narrative" is set, it is almost impossible to make a reasoned counter-argument, since confirmation bias will allow those that find the "scroungers narrative" plausible, to blithely dismiss any facts and evidence as leftie "scrounger apologism"; thus the "blame the victim fallacy" becomes another example of the the persistence of discredited belief.

Once we realise that swathes of political debate and media commentary are fundamentally reliant on simplistic justification narratives, the confirmation bias effect and the subjective worldviews of the general public, it becomes extremely important to recognise that  the "agreeability" of political statements or media representations should be secondary considerations to their validity.

In the practical reality of day-to-day existence the maintenance of such a deliberately considered and objective stance is impossible. We cannot rationally deconstruct every statement we ever hear in search of methodological flaws so we often rely on heuristic judgements (rule of thumb, common sense, educated guesses, believing in testimony of previously reliable witness, personal opinion). I mean who would even want to brutally deconstruct their favourite piece of poetry,  cherished work of art, sentimental object or the words "I love you" in search of empirical validity?

It is extremely important to realise is when we are allowing ourselves to apply heuristic short-cuts and when we must apply rigorous objective analysis to avoid being misled. When a friend invites us around for dinner at 7.00 PM there is absolutely no need to subject their statement to rigorous critical appraisal, however whenever we read a newspaper article, listen to a politician speaking on the radio or watch an advert on the TV, it is much more important to apply critical analysis, even if we tend to agree with what is being said.

In order to maintain a more objective view of reality it is vitally important to read between the lines because what is omitted is often far more important that what is presented by the media as "objective fact"; to critically doubt everything that comes out of a politician's mouth, even if you find yourself instinctively agreeing with them at the time; or to carefully consider the tricks and techniques being used by the advertiser to incentivise us to pay for their products even if we instinctively want to buy them.

The more effort we expend on combating confirmation bias, the more natural it becomes to us,  however it will always be impossible to live ones entire life on a unbiased plain of perfect rationality and objectivity. This means that it is important to recognise when it is necessary to deliberately adopt a more objective and critical stance and also to be aware that we will continue to live most of our lives in a much more comfortable cloud of subjectivity, unsubstantiated opinion and heuristics.

We must recognise when we are allowing ourselves to adopt such a heuristic state, since a great deal of propaganda can slip through as we relax, peruse a seemingly lightweight magazine, read a crappy novel or watch a soap opera. "Soft media" is actually an ideal medium for propagating social stereotypes, facile generalisations, fallacious arguments and the like, precisely because most people choose to read a celebrity magazine or watch a soap opera as an escape from the hard world of critical analysis. Once we are in this relaxed, uncritical, heuristic state lazing around in front of the TV or comfort reading we are much less likely to subject the subject matter to painstaking objective analysis, meaning confirmation bias is more likely to allow subjective and distorted ideas to leak into our consciousness.

As a crudely oversimplified conclusion, I suppose I could say that: As we observe a subject matter, the first step towards avoiding confirmation bias, and the subjective distortions it creates, is to try to be aware of our own state as we are making the observation.


 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.


More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 


The economic case against tax-dodging