,

Art of perception management

YouGov and the Art of ‘Perception Management’

Last week YouGov conducted a survey on how many Australians support the Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton’s call for a Boycott of Woolworths.

Dutton’s call was in response to the Woolworths Group’s announcing they would no longer be stocking Australia Day products in its stores due to ‘sensitivities’ around the holding of the country’s National Day on 26 January.
The survey results were immediately jumped on by the media, who all ran almost identical headlines proclaiming that:
“Only 20% of Australians back Dutton’s call to boycott Woolworths”.
YouGov itself stated that its “public data poll found that only 20% of Australian voters back opposition leader, Peter Dutton’s call to boycott Woolworths and Big W.”
The company’s statement, like its survey, is highly misleading.
Instead of simply posing a straightforward question, like: “Do you support Peter Dutton’s call for a boycott?”, YouGov presented respondents with three options and asked them to choose the one that “most applies to you”.
The three options were as follows:
– I support the decision of Woolworths and Big W management (14%);
– I support Mr Dutton’s call and will be boycotting Woolworths and Big W (20%); and
– My main concern with supermarkets now is excessive price rises rather than this issue (66%).
Obviously, most people presented with these options – including myself – would select price gouging by supermarkets as the more concerning issue for them, during a cost-of-living crisis.
It should be noted, however, that the last two options are NOT mutually exclusive.
In other words, the selection of option 3 doesn’t automatically mean that someone isn’t ALSO supportive of option 2.
It simply means that price gouging by Woolworths is MORE of a concern.
So, to conclude that “ONLY 20% of Australians back Dutton’s call for a Woolworths boycott” from the survey’s results, is both a logical nonsense, AND a prime example of mal-information (“information that stems from the truth but exaggerated or framed in a way that misleads”).
As a professional data analytics company, YouGov knows all this.
They have clearly constructed their survey in such a way as to ensure a predetermined result – one that allows for its political ‘framing’ as a mass public rejection of Dutton’s calls for a boycott.
This is precisely how ‘perception management’ strategies work.
And why we should always examine the exact questions and methodology used by data analytics companies like YouGov, rather than simply accepting the political ‘framing’ of a particular survey by the mass media.
I have attached an oldie but a goodie on just how this works with surveys in other situations as well. It’s funny and it’s accurate.
/0 Comments/by
,

The end of free speech

Australia’s Draconian New Censorship Bill

A new Bill was introduced into Parliament late last year that has the potential to end free speech in Australia permanently.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023, delegates enormous powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to police digital platforms and directly intervene to prevent ‘harm’.
The bill defines “harm” as:
(a) hatred against a group on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or physical or mental disability;
(b) disruption of PUBLIC ORDER or society in Australia;
(c) harm to the integrity of Australian democratic processes or of Commonwealth, State, Territory or local government institutions;
(d) harm to the health of Australians;
(e) harm to the Australian environment;
(f) economic or financial harm to Australians, the Australian economy or a sector of the Australian economy.
Take a moment to read that list through carefully and consider its dangerous implications.
Such a vague definition of “harm” would see ACMA become the sole arbiter of what is “true” and what isn’t.
It could also be used to SHUT DOWN most, if not ALL, avenues of legitimate dissent, including boycotts, demonstrations, refusal to pay a tax or fine, sit-ins and strikes.
ACMA would morph into the country’s State Censor.
It would have the power to REQUIRE any person to appear before its commissioners to answer questions. It would also have the power to impose infringement notices, remedial directions, injunctions and civil penalties, including fines of up to $AUD550,000 for individuals and $AUD2.75 million for corporations.
Criminal penalties, including imprisonment, would apply in cases of “extreme harm”.
Ironically, the bill EXEMPTS two powerful purveyors of misinformation and disinformation – the government and large mainstream media companies!
Because of course governments and the mainstream media NEVER EVER lie or twist the truth, right?!
At most risk of being targeted will be all the small operators of blogs, political websites and those publishing articles and opinion on aggregated platforms like Substack.
Those behind this bill won’t rest until they have obliterated every last scrap of anonymity, privacy, dissent and alternative viewpoints from the internet.
Any State holding the power to inflict such full spectrum dominance and control over its citizens, has NO right to call itself ‘free’, or a democracy.
Please contact your local Senator and ask them to BLOCK THIS BILL in the Senate at all costs.
/0 Comments/by