Transparent bias in IRC Lisbon guide

meglome

Exanxious wrote: »

Sorry I haven't put forward any explanation for how the bias got there. What actually happened was that DMA submitted a number of different design ideas to the commission (I understand 4 of the 5 commission members were present at this meeting) and the one we see was picked. I don't know what was discussed at the meeting, what the unsucessful design ideas were like, how DMA had interpreted their brief, and many other things that would be relevant if you wanted to develope a theory. All I have to go on are the final designs.

Is this your new username then? Was that accidental?

If there was dirty tricks at play here I'd hope those ****e Yes poster would be greatly improved.

Scofflaw

By the way, assetmadman/Exanxious, I think you may have forgotten which account you're using.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Exanxious

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, my own view would be, politely, that your analysis is a good deal less tenable than his, and that his is probably as you describe.

In general, cupped hands are used to indicate a caring attitude and trustworthiness on the part of the organisation involved - as in "we're looking after it, you can trust us to do so", with "it" being whatever is held in the hands. Does the Referendum Commission want to see itself that way? Does it wish to generate trust in itself? Does it wish people to trust that it is "looking after" Lisbon? Yes, I imagine it does, and I imagine that is exactly how it sees itself.

politely,
Scofflaw

The best way for the RTC to procede would have been to ensure the guide was fair. The redundancy of additionally trying to convince people using creative design that it was fair was a very bad idea, if that's what their intention was. Their brief includes encouraging people to vote. I'd imagine their defence of the additonal design features is that they furthered that objective.

Scofflaw

Exanxious wrote: »

The best way for the RTC to procede would have been to ensure the guide was fair. The redundancy of additionally trying to convince people using creative design that it was fair was a very bad idea, if that's what their intention was. Their brief includes encouraging people to vote. I'd imagine their defence of the additonal design features is that they furthered that objective.

Unfortunately, that Caesar's wife should be above suspicion may be a good maxim, but the only way for the Referendum Commission to avoid any suspicion would be not to use any design at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Also, I'm really going to have to insist on an answer in respect of whether you're using two accounts here - and are you also Jackinkul?

moderately,
Scofflaw

assetmadman

I'm sorry. I got dumped out. There was another username and password on this computer and I logged in using the saved account details of this other account without noticing. Apologies

assetmadman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also, I'm really going to have to insist on an answer in respect of whether you're using two accounts here - and are you also Jackinkul?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Other people use this computer, actually this IP also on other computers. What do you need me to do?

marco_polo

Exanxious wrote: »

Sorry I haven't put forward any explanation for how the bias got there. What actually happened was that DMA submitted a number of different design ideas to the commission (I understand 4 of the 5 commission members were present at this meeting) and the one we see was picked. I don't know what was discussed at the meeting, what the unsucessful design ideas were like, how DMA had interpreted their brief, and many other things that would be relevant if you wanted to develope a theory. All I have to go on are the final designs.

I don't mean to butt on something that is none of my concern, but to be fair this first post does not look like an attempt to pretend to be a different user.

meglome

assetmadman wrote: »

Other people use this computer, actually this IP also on other computers. What do you need me to do?

Good story. Now if we use the level of logic and evidence you used I'm afraid you're awfully awfully guilty, public flogging is the only way sorry.

Scofflaw

assetmadman wrote: »

Other people use this computer, actually this IP also on other computers. What do you need me to do?

Be a little more careful - as marco_polo says, I'm not accusing you of trying anything funny, because you clearly weren't attempting to do any sockpuppetry.

moderately,
Scofflaw

assetmadman

Scofflaw wrote: »

That, in turn, suggests that the Referendum Commission, far from engaging in some kind of cunning plan, simply picked something that appealed to them, and that reinforced their self-image.

About the worst interpretation one can put on this - on the evidence - is that maybe the Referendum Commission feel positively about either themselves or the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It possible that the parties at cross purposes produced a biased effect. Ideally the proposed final designs would have been submitted to a qualified third party to be examined for possible bias. To my knowledge no one on the IRC has this expertese.

bug

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not really large enough to be a conspiracy 'theory' in the usual sense - however, the claim is essentially that the Referendum Commission is in breach of its statutory duty of objectivity, and is conspiring against the public (presumably with the government parties) - and many No proponents wouold probably further claim that this conspiracy between the supposedly impartial bodies and the Yes campaigns is a feature of the referendum.

In that sense, yes, it's a conspiracy theory - had I chosen to write Captain Furball's original post in the CT forum, I would have described it as part of the ongoing campaign by the elites to control and mislead the populace, which would have made it firmly conspiracy theory material.

It would be perfectly reasonable, of course, to describe it instead as an imaginative piece of paranoia.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Point taken.

But it would have perhaps been more responsible and objective to send the document prepared by the commission itself in text format and design to a printers rather than engaging an advertising agency.

Minus imagery that could be interpreted in whatever way, as has been pointed out.

It would also have been more cost effective doing just that.

Scofflaw

assetmadman wrote: »

It possible that the parties at cross purposes produced a biased effect. Ideally the proposed final designs would have been submitted to a qualified third party to be examined for possible bias. To my knowledge no one on the IRC has this expertese.

Unfortunately, you're suggesting that they compensate for something that is almost impossible to determine. The Referendum Commission have the right to consider themselves as trustworthy - you're more or less starting from the position that they're not, and advancing extraordinarily thin and entirely subjective 'evidence' for your case.

Have you any comment on the way that cupping hands are normally used, as compared to how you think they should be interpreted? Are you claiming that it's in some way an unusual theme to choose for an agency whose main stock in trade is trust?

I don't mean to be hostile here, but this is the third very similar 'theory' advanced about the booklet that I've seen, and I do tend to go with the maxim that "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action". A concerted effort was made last campaign to discredit the Referendum Commission, because the neutral material they offered didn't support the No campaign positions. I would be extremely surprised if such an attempt is not to be made this time as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bug

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, you're suggesting that they compensate for something that is almost impossible to determine. The Referendum Commission have the right to consider themselves as trustworthy - you're more or less starting from the position that they're not, and advancing extraordinarily thin 'evidence' for your case.

Have you any comment on the way that cupping hands are normally used, as compared to how you think they should be interpreted? Are you claiming that it's in some way an unusual theme to choose for an agency whose main stock in trade is trust?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I dunno Scofflaw, I went to a Catholic school run by nuns and the representation of cupped hands meant adoration and praise, offered upwards.:)

We also did media studies, and were taught not to accept any media at face value without examining it regardless of its origin.

The commission have the right to consider themselves trustworthy within their remit.
They most probably are and have positive intentions.

I would have personally started from the point that they didn't have the experience to compose a document like this on their own and had to bring in an external advertising agency...

assetmadman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, you're suggesting that they compensate for something that is almost impossible to determine. The Referendum Commission have the right to consider themselves as trustworthy - you're more or less starting from the position that they're not, and advancing extraordinarily thin and entirely subjective 'evidence' for your case.

Have you any comment on the way that cupping hands are normally used, as compared to how you think they should be interpreted? Are you claiming that it's in some way an unusual theme to choose for an agency whose main stock in trade is trust?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm starting from the position that the guides are biased having read them. The IRC hardly covered themselves in glory in the first referendum, but with different personelle this time I was prepared to give their work a fair hearing. I'm afraid the guides are biased. Anyone who knows anything about design would have pointed out that the hands on the front were too much like a Y to be acceptible.

(BTW the extended guide also has two hands on the front. That they are further apart (incidentally, they don't resemble any letter of the alphabet) suggests the cupped hands on the front of the shorter guide are cupped partly to suggest that it is shorter in comparison with the extended guide.)

skelliser

can we not post images here?, i thought it would be interesting to compare this years cover with last year

Boston

http://blogs.smh.com.au/radar/hands.gif

Daftendirekt

While I could stretch to understanding the OP's point about the hands, the second and third images made me laugh.

For what it's worth, I assumed the cupped hands holding the text were meant to imply something to the effect of "The Lisbon Treaty - It's in your hands."

Come to think of it, wasn't that a catchy little slogan on their Lisbon 2008 website?


I wouldn't read too much into it though - I've come to expect The Ref Com to plaster their leaflets and websites in cheesy images and pictures of smiley people.

assetmadman

DMA who designed the guides uses it's design of the IRC's 2008 referendum materials to attract new customers. The comparison with 2009 materials is interesting.
http://dma.ie/index.php/advertising_agency/integrated_marketing_agency/1/1/1

I have to say i remember very little of it in real time. I wasn't that engaged last year.

Scofflaw

bug wrote: »

I dunno Scofflaw, I went to a Catholic school run by nuns and the representation of cupped hands meant adoration and praise, offered upwards.:)

We also did media studies, and were taught not to accept any media at face value without examining it regardless of its origin.

The commission have the right to consider themselves trustworthy within their remit.
They most probably are and have positive intentions.

I would have personally started from the point that they didn't have the experience to compose a document like this on their own and had to bring in an external advertising agency...

That seems reasonable to me...I've worked with plenty of design agencies, and the whole process sounds pretty standard. I find it extremely difficult to take these accusations of subliminal messaging seriously, I'm afraid. People who start from a No position, read the Referendum Commission's material, find it biased, and who then go on to decide that the design (the third-party design) is subliminal messaging....I'm sorry, but as far as I can see they're simply exercising their prejudices.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Basically the only people subject to subliminal messaging here are No voters!

skelliser

btw,off topic but that dma site is very well designed

bug

Scofflaw wrote: »

That seems reasonable to me...I've worked with plenty of design agencies, and the whole process sounds pretty standard. I find it extremely difficult to take these accusations of subliminal messaging seriously, I'm afraid. People who start from a No position, read the Referendum Commission's material, find it biased, and who then go on to decide that the design (the third-party design) is subliminal messaging....I'm sorry, but as far as I can see they're simply exercising their prejudices.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's true. The commission though, should IMO, in future, be sufficient enough not to have to engage third parties in its remit, to be completely transparant in this regard.

Basically the only people subject to subliminal messaging here are No voters!

That's not true, I know a yes voter who has secretly admitted to me after much soul searching that he buy's diet coke because of the advertising.

assetmadman

K-9 wrote: »

Basically the only people subject to subliminal messaging here are No voters!

Subject to subliminal messages - I'm afraid that's part of the human condition. Advertisers, etc. try to understand how subliminal communication takes place and then use it to influence their target audience. No secret about that.

K-9

assetmadman wrote: »

Subject to subliminal messages - I'm afraid that's part of the human condition. Advertisers, etc. try to understand how subliminal communication takes place and then use it to influence their target audience. No secret about that.

Exactly, all I hear is complaints about the IRC.

Anybody actually supportive of the IRC?

Scofflaw

bug wrote: »

That's true. The commission though, should IMO, in future, be sufficient enough not to have to engage third parties in its remit, to be completely transparant in this regard.

And better funded, and have longer to work on the material, and be given a broader remit...I don't have an issue in respect of their integrity, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

assetmadman

They're big boys (and girl). They're paid well. Don't feel sorry for them.

Emily O'Reilly contributed a comment at the press conference they gave today that they weren't allowed enough time to do their job. What failing, if any, this had resulted in she didn't confide. I suspect some of them must be unhappy with the guides. Harm done.

K-9

assetmadman wrote: »

They're big boys (and girl). They're paid well. Don't feel sorry for them.

Emily O'Reilly contributed a comment at the press conference they gave today that they weren't allowed enough time to do their job. What failing, if any, this had resulted in she didn't confide. I suspect some of them must be unhappy with the guides. Harm done.

Fine.

Just be careful of the subliminal messaging the other way.

Works both ways, though they don't want you to know that! :eek:

assetmadman

[FONT=&quot]RTÉ want to install Judge Frank Clarke, chairman of the IRC, as a favourite uncle for friendly fireside chats. Judge Clarke himself has questions to answer. He had a statutory legal duty to produce fair Lisbon Treaty guides. But the guides are biased.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055671791[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A question one might like to ask Judge Clarke is: If evidence presented before you was contaminated, would you dismiss the case?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]RTÉ refuse to permit any discussion of the matter of biased IRC guides. Do we have to have a foreign broadcaster come into the country to get some coverage of this issue?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Certainly it is an issue meriting Europe-wide concern. We Irish are the only people in Europe who have been allowed to vote on this treaty? If we want to be good Europeans, surely we must demand it of ourselves that we get to the bottom of the question of bias in the IRC guides. This has happened on our watch. Europeans of differing persuasions, our contemporaries and those who come after us, will thank us for it.[/FONT]

Scofflaw

This is a thread in reference to another thread? Is there a particular reason why the OP needs two threads to discuss the same subject, the second of which is clearly a reference to the first?

Merging.

moderately,
Scofflaw