As well as being aware of
the agenda of the various stakeholders and their relative power base, it is
important to be familiar with the kind of tactics people and organisations use
to persuade us of the legitimacy of their point of view. The following is a list of some of the common
tactics to look out for.[27]
Extrapolating opposition argument to the
absurd and then refuting the absurd
This is also known as the ‘straw man’ approach –
create a straw man, something which you can pretend represents your opponents’
position, and knock that down.
President Bush’s declaration that anyone who opposed his actions in the wake of
the attacks of 11th
September 2001 was a supporter of terrorism is a classic example:
“Either you are for us
or for the terrorists.”
This
has been one of the most important oratorical tricks in the president’s armoury
in his time in office. It has enabled him to take a range of actions including
invading Iraq,
legalising torture[28] and domestic surveillance that would arguably
have been more difficult without the aid of painting his opponents as ‘soft on
terrorism.’
Appealing to emotion and prejudice
If someone tells us a story
we want to hear, we are more likely to believe it. There are a huge number of
ways of using this tactic. One example is appealing to nationalism, as in the
following example from Jack Valenti, the President of the Motion Picture
Association of America, in his testimony to a congressional sub-committee, on
the ‘Home recording of copyrighted works’ (i.e. the use of video cassette
recorders) in 1982.
“The
US
film and television production industry is a huge and valuable American asset.
In 1981, it returned to this country almost $1 billion in surplus balance of
trade. And I might add, Mr Chairman, it is the single one American-made product
that the Japanese, skilled beyond all comparison in their conquest of world
trade, are unable to duplicate or to displace or to compete with or to clone.
And I might add that this important asset today is in jeopardy. Why?... Now, I
have here the profits of Japanese companies, if you want to talk about greed.
Here, Hitachi,
Matsushita, Sanyo, Sony, TDK, Toshiba, Victor, all of whom make these VCRs. Do
you know what their net profits were last year? $2.8 billion net profit.”
Labeling or ghettoisation of interested groups
Group all opponents under
one general heading. Once there, they can be labelled, on a spectrum from
‘lunatics’ to ‘nice people who just do not understand.’ Then conclude that
their arguments are not worth taking into consideration because they are at
best ill-informed. There is a whole
range of ways of using this tactic. If
scientists agree on an inconvenient truth like global warming or evolution they
are intellectual snobs who think they know better than the rest of us. Conservative Christian advocates of the
teaching of ‘intelligent design’ in science lessons in the US are very
good at this.[29] One of the central themes of this book is the
value to be gained from experts and ordinary people working together. The intelligent
design debate is good example of ordinary people making what I believe is a bad
judgement call, in defiance of contrary scientific evidence and advice. Their values and beliefs lead them to reject
the scientific theory of evolution in an attempt to promote their own model,
intelligent design, of how life came into existence.[30]
Balancing act
Modern journalistic practice
of reporting that there are two sides to every
story,[31] in an apparent effort to appear balanced, can
result in all kinds of quacks getting a media platform. [Yes, I plead guilty here to using a denigrating
label]. If someone says the moon is made of cheese on a slow news day, the
headlines will say ‘opinion divided on the composition of the moon.’
Deborah Lipstadt [32] provides an especially stark example in the
media tendency to legitimise the views of people who deny the holocaust took
place, in spite of the overwhelming mass of incontrovertible documented and eye
witness evidence of the Nazis’ atrocities. Lipstadt refused all media offers to
‘debate’ the reality of the holocaust with holocaust deniers, since it would
just present these people with a public platform in which their point of view
would be considered to be of equal value.
Unfortunately an
expert backed by solid evidence but with poor communication skills can fail to
influence a DDM situation, when faced with someone who has a poor understanding
of the evidence but a strong agenda and good communications skills.
Using jargon to confuse
With DDM being such a
complex subject, any debate about the design, deployment or regulation of
information systems is open to this tactic. For example: ‘You will, of course,
understand that the DRM or TPM anti-circumvention measures in the UK
implementation of EU directive 2001/29/EC on copyrights and related rights in
the information society, the EUCD, were a direct result of our international
obligations, rather than something we would have chosen to write into UK law of
our own volition.’
Making appeals to 'experts'
I refer to Bruce Schneier, James
Boyle, Kim Cameron
and others throughout this book as experts. A reader, who is unfamiliar with
these individuals or their areas of expertise, may just be taking my word that
they are indeed experts. Very often
media reports quote named and un-named ‘experts’ in support of their
assertions, though, and it can be well worth checking the credentials of these
people.
Using sarcasm, innuendo, denigration and
other forms of humour to belittle opponents
It is easier to get a low
opinion of the opposing advocate if you are funny – the humour makes it easy
for the audience to like you and diverts attention from the substance of your
argument.
The dominant metaphor
George Lakoff [33] teaches that metaphors are the mental
structures that shape the way we see the world.
If someone tells us a story through appealing metaphors and language we
are more likely to accept their point of view. By the same token, when Richard Nixon went on
TV and said “I’m not a crook,” immediately everyone believed he was a
crook. It is also like telling someone
not to think of an elephant. No matter how hard you try after someone has said
this, the image of the elephant will come into your mind.
Using rhetorical questions
If
you get your audience to subconsciously supply the answer invited by the
question, they become more receptive to the views that follow as a consequence
of the answer. To appreciate this, test the effect of taking the opposite
answer to the one implied. The wonderful
BBC comedy series Yes Prime Minster gave a
classic illustration of this when Sir Humphrey Appleby [34] explained to Bernard Woolley [35] how to fix a survey:
Sir
Humphrey: “Well Bernard you know what happens. Nice young lady comes up to you.
Obviously you want to create a good impression. You don’t want to look a fool,
do you?”
Bernard: “No.”
Sir Humphrey: “No. So she
starts asking you some questions. Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number
of young people without jobs?”
Bernard: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Are you
worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?”
Bernard: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you
think there is a lack of discipline in our comprehensive schools?”
Bernard: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you
think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?”
Bernard: “Yes.”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you
think they respond to a challenge?”
Bernard: “Yes.”
Sir Humphrey: “Would you
be in favour of re-introducing national service?”
Bernard: “Y… oh, well I
suppose I might be.”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes or no?”
Bernard: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Of course
you would, Bernard. After all you’ve told her you can’t say no to that. So they
don’t mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.”[36]
A
variation on the rhetorical question is the use of words and phrases which
suggest that the audience should accept without question, e.g. ‘Obviously...’
or ‘It is clear that we all agree...’
The sound bite
It is very hard to
find simple responses to counter established rhetoric. “If you’ve got nothing
to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” for example.* You could try “how much do you earn” or “have
you got curtains or a lock on your bathroom door” but they do not have the same
effect. Likewise “If I am not doing
anything wrong, then you should not be watching me”; “Everyone has something to
hide because everyone is entitled to privacy”; “Those engaged in the
surveillance get to decide what's ‘wrong,’ and they keep changing the
definition”; “You might misuse my information”; “I don't have anything to hide.
But I don't have anything I want you to see, either”; “The government is
sticking its nose into my business without a reasonable excuse”; and so on. It
is an uneven playing field, rhetorically speaking – the rhetoric is stacked
against the nuanced but more complete argument or explanation. In a world of short attention spans, if you have
to explain, you are losing the argument.
Presenting evidence or apparent evidence to make it appear to point to a particular
conclusion
This includes using
carefully selected evidence, while omitting contrary evidence. In the UK government consultation on the
proposed ‘entitlement card’ in 2003, about 6000 people indicated opposition to
the idea and about 2000 were in favour.
The government at that time presented the results by saying that most
people were in favour of the scheme by a ratio of 2 to 1. They later justified
this by saying they had counted the 5000 or so who had expressed their
opposition to the scheme via the Internet as a single vote against the scheme. David Blunkett, Home Secretary at
the time, dismissed the people who used the Net to object as a vocal minority
of civil liberties activists. The
government then commissioned a survey, the results of which suggested 80% of
the population were in favour of ID cards. They have been quoting this survey ever
since, in spite of a lot of evidence showing a huge drop off in support for the
system.
Taking what someone says out of context
People regularly take quotes
from religious texts like the Koran or the Bible out of context to justify
their behaviour. George Bush was
vilified by critics for describing ten months of violence following the 2005
elections in Iraq
as “just a comma” in history.[37]
Avoiding giving evidence whilst suggesting
that evidence is being given
Put out a vague policy
statement, saying the details will come later, then when asked about the
details at a later date claim all the details were clearly included in the
original policy statement and there is nothing further to add.
Non sequitur – ‘It does not follow’
This involves drawing an
illogical conclusion from sound data. Since the data are credible the
conclusion which follows closely is also accepted. The subtle exponent of the
art will embed the illogical conclusion between two logical ones. An example is
the government’s stance on the UK
national identity system. It will be compulsory for everyone to have an ID
card. Yet it is claimed that the card cannot be considered compulsory, since it
will not be compulsory to carry it around all the time.
Repetition
Repetition of a claim,
periodically and frequently, over a long period of time can often lead to
general acceptance of the claim as fact, even though it may have been
discredited on numerous occasions. This is a tactic used extensively by ‘historical
revisionists’ like those who deny the existence of the holocaust. [38] In chapter 8, I look briefly at the repeated
efforts to introduce a software patent directive in the European Union. Those in favour of such a policy merely need
to keep re-introducing it periodically over a sustained period. Those who oppose such a policy need to be
alert and mobilise effective opposition to every attempt to implement such a
policy. Those with the most stamina get their way in the end.
Corporate, civil society or politically
funded think tanks
These institutions present
an alternative to traditional academic and scientific peer review. Researchers publish the required
results. Ordinary people find it hard to
tell the difference between real research and advocacy research and the media
rarely make the effort to distinguish or understand the difference between
these when reporting on particular findings.
Increasingly, research in universities is commercially sponsored.[39] A simple question which is always worth asking
is: who paid for the research?
Astroturfing
This
is the public relations trick of creating illusory grass roots campaigns. Public relations companies acting, for
example, on behalf of the energy, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries and
political parties have been doing this for decades.[40] The idea is to send lots of letters or emails
purporting to come from ordinary people to politicians or newspapers in order
to make it appear that there is significant feeling about a particular
issue. There is a huge industry engaged
in buying and selling personal data for commercial and political exploitation
of this sort. At the simplest level these
details can be obtained from the voting register or the register of births and
deaths.*I would just note that the "nothing to hide" sound bite is particularly poisonous and should be refuted at every conceivable opportunity. It is based on two gigantic false assumptions -
1. that privacy is exclusively sought or needed by evil people wanting to hide nefarious deeds and intentions. It is not.
2. that destroying privacy will solve the complex socio-technical-economic-environmental-justice-immigration-terrorism-[choose your issue] problem/mess of the day. It has not and will not.
Never, ever accept "nothing to hide..." as the basis for framing a debate.
Notes
These tactics of persuasion are an extract from Chapter 6 of my book Digital Decision Making: Back to the Future, Springer Verlag [2007].
27 This list is
adapted, with the kind permission of the Open University, from my Open
University course, T182 Law the Internet
and Society: technology and the future of ideas, which is fairly heavily
focused on intellectual property and digital technologies. The course is based on Larry Lessig’s book The Future of Ideas (Random House,
2001). Both Jessica Litman in chapter 5
of Digital Copyright and Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite in chapter 3 of Information Feudalism: Who Owns the
Knowledge Economy do a terrific job of outlining the long term process of
changing public perception of what intellectual property is about.
28 See The Torture Debate in America Edited by
Karen Greenberg (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and the Balkanization blog
at http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/09/anti-torture-memos-balkinization-posts.html
29 For a particularly
good collection of essays dissecting their position see Intelligent Thought : Science versus the Intelligent Design
Movement Edited by John Brockman (Vintage, 2006)
30 Incidentally,
whether or not you believe in God, is it seriously beyond the bounds of
possibility that He might understand enough science to work with evolutionary
processes?
31 And usually only two sides.
32 See Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault
on Truth and Memory by Deborah Lipstadt for an especially stark example of
the media tendency to legitimise the views of people who deny the holocaust
took place, in spite of the overwhelming mass of incontrovertible documented
and eye witness evidence of the atrocity. Lipstadt refused all media offers to
‘debate’ the reality of the holocaust with holocaust deniers since it would
just present these people with a public platform in which their ‘point of view’
would be considered to be of equal value.
33 Don't Think of an Elephant: Progressive
Values and the Framing Wars a Progressive Guide to Action by George Lakoff
(Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2004); Metaphors
We Live By by George Lakoff & Mark Johnson (University of Chicago
Press, 1989)
34 Played by
Nigel Hawthorne.
35 Played by
Derek Fowlds.
36 The episode
in question was The Grand Design,
which first aired on the BBC on the
9th of January 1986.
37 Just a Comma’ Becomes Part of the Iraq
Debate by Peter Baker Washington Post
5 October, 2006
at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100401707.html
38 David Irving,
for example, went to prison in Austria
for this.
39 See, for
example, Deterring Democracy by Noam
Chomsky (Vintage, 1992) p.303. Chomsky says: “One fundamental goal of any
well-crafted indoctrination program is to direct attention elsewhere, away from
effective power, its roots, and the disguises it assumes.”
40 Toxic
Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry by John Stauber, Sheldon Rampton (Common
Courage Press, September 1995) has some excellent examples.
