There is a well known editorial technique used in the media world called FUD.
It is not widely used, in fact it is only used by news-sheets at the lower end of the publishing spectrum, otherwise known as tabloids, or by so-called newspapers which are highly biased in their political views that they need to pander to party politics.
FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
It is a style which is not only the stock-in-trade of low-life sensationalist media, but also of unscrupulous politicians who will not stop short of lying or bending the truth to suit their political ends.
Make no mistake, it can be highly effective, particularly among those who only take a passing interest in news or the world around them. This can be a substantial part of any population and I’m sure you personally know many such people.
Such people are not unintelligent or dimwitted, it’s just that they have little interest in searching out the truth for themselves to double check what they are being told. Their lives are full of other things, or they simply don’t have the interest. In most countries over 25 percent of eligible voters don’t even bother to turn out for polls, such is their level of interest in politics or current affairs. There is not blame to attach, it is simply a fact of life.
FUD can be extremely effective, particularly when both a section of the media and certainly politicians indulge in spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about certain subjects when they know full-well a good proportion of those who read or hear such utterances will just err on the side of fear, uncertainty and doubt, not bother or check, and just behave or vote in a certain way.
The coming Taiwan referendums are a classic example of how FUD has been used during a seemingly democratic process to make people frightened, uncertain or doubtful that what their government is telling them is not wholly true. So voters will simply mitigate their fear, uncertainty and doubt by voting for something without having a full picture of the wider implications in their minds.
On Saturday all these fear factors will play out when people vote. Unless they truly understand all the implications of what they are voting for, the safest and strongest stance for democracy and the smooth continuation of current government policy is to vote 'no' and trust the government on all four issues. The referendums are opposition distractions based on political expediency, nothing more.
I’ve written many times on how referendums are not a reliable tool that working democracies can usefully employ. Indeed, Saturday's clutch of four questions are riddled with the usual pitfalls and lack of context which will undoubtedly trip up many voters. Opposition parties have for weeks been waging a campaign of instilling fear, doubt and uncertainty via rumour and innuendo based around the frighteningly simple this-or-that style questions.
1) US Pork - Do you agree that the government should completely ban the import of pig meat, offal and related products containing ractopamine beta receptor hormone?
Note this is without the context of the wider implication of the possible follow-on impact of such a ban like Taiwan’s vitally important relationship with the United States. It is pretty much impossible to answer such a black-and-white question like this in an intelligent way. It points the way to one-dimensional thinking and the door open for political rivals to just say “vote yes if you don’t want this nasty additive in your food” and engender fear and uncertainty built around health issues. This highlights the very narrow and imperfect nature of referendums. The Pork question is a particularly egregious example of how badly a referendum question can be formed and lead to possibly bad consequences in the future.
2) Number 4 Reactor - Do you agree to unseal (restart) the no 4 nuclear power plant for business operations?
Again, with this question it is black and white and doesn’t get to the heart of what people are actually voting for. People may vote for this thinking it is just one nuclear power plant they are agreeing to, only for a future government to take it as a mandate to open the others or build new ones. This is exactly what has happened with the UK’s Brexit referendum with the Leave vote taken by the government as a mandate to make any deal they want with Europe and it has been an utter disaster. The nuclear power issue in Taiwan, and energy policy in general, is an extremely broad issue and should not be boiled down to just one yes/no question. It is an issue which should be addressed at a general election as policy, not boiled down to one power station.
3) The Coral Reef - Do you agree that the third natural gas receiving station of CNPC will move away from the coast and waters of Datan Algae Reef, Taoyuan?
Again this extremely narrowly based question could lead of countless issues, delays and costs in the future, and I’m sure most people voting yes to this will do so purely based on emotion. If yes, the environmental lobby will have got its way and they don’t have to care about future energy needs. It will also allow them to oppose any future location the government chooses on environment issues and allow them way too much control over energy policy. This question will be answered based on the emotion of voters. It is an excellent example of why referendums should not control such decisions.
4) Referendums and Elections - Do you agree that within six months of the establishment of the referendum proposal, if there is a national election during that period, the referendum should be held on the same day as the election, provided that it meets the requirements of the referendum law?
Not only is this poorly worded and confusing, it risks mixing referendums and elections. There is no worse idea. Elections are supposed to be about broad policies and running the country. Bogging them down with tiny single issues would only add to confusion and misdirection as politicians battle to outdo each other with statement upon statement on every minute detail. Issues surrounding elections are difficult enough for most people to digest. Adding to them with a swathe of referendums is a road to confusion, lack of focus about what's important and works to weaken democracy, not to strengthen it.
No comments:
Post a Comment