Transparent bias in IRC Lisbon guide

assetmadman

For your consideration

The front of the Independent Referendum Commission’s guide to the 2009 Lisbon Treaty referendum
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6130/coverirclisbonleafletr.jpg

If these hands are to bear a passing resemblance to a letter of the alphabet, then there are two letters that it should not resemble: Y and N

MESSAGE: Vote Yes to Lisbon


The hands look like a chalice. They raise up THE LISBON TREATY in the way a priest presents the host to the congregation at a Catholic mass.

MESSAGE: Catholics vote Yes to Lisbon


Pages 2&3 of the IRC Lisbon Treaty extended guide
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4388/truthinirclisbonextguid.jpg

The T of TRUTH is partially obscured behind the head of the student. The mind’s eye wants to correct for this by moving the word TRUTH to the right because (i) we read from left to right (ii) the dynamic intrusion of the body of the student into the frame is forcing it in that direction.

MESSAGE: Truth is on the side of the government’s reassurances

(That these two pages are to be understood as a single space within one frame is clear from pages 6&7 where the word UNDERSTAND extends across the two pages.)


Page 15 of the IRC Lisbon Treaty extended guide.
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4951/decideinirclisbonextgui.jpg

DECIDE is to the right of the figure. Decision comes after. The construction worker’s helmet has been left down; rolled up plans lie on the floor. Between them, the crossed legs of the young man suggest an X with connotations of voting and getting something wrong. This is all below the word DECIDE. So below DECIDE has happened; above is possibility.

MESSAGE: Vote No again and young men won’t be wearing expensive shirts.


Or this could be just accidental.

oscarBravo

Oh, please.

oscarBravo

After a PM discussion, I'm re-opening this thread, with reservations.

oscarBravo

assetmadman wrote: »

Or this could be just accidental.

Occam's razor tells me that this is the only sane explanation for what you've described here.

assetmadman

oscarBravo wrote: »

Occam's razor tells me that this is the only sane explanation for what you've described here.

Occam's Razor AKA the principle of parsimony clearly is not a design priciple when it comes to advertising, media campaigns, etc. Ads are replete with design intended to have an effect on the viewer.

What's disturbing is to see these ways of biasing how a viewer reads and is, often subliminally, influenced by a design feature being used in the supposedly independent Referendum Commission's leaflets.

I think the operative principle for the design should have been the one about Caesar's wife, and because it clearly doesn't apply, Occam's razor won't easily settle the issue of what was the intention of the designers.

skelliser

i agree that the hands are sneaky, there is no reason to have them in it other then to suggest that the treaty is all inclusive or something like that.

oscarBravo

assetmadman wrote: »

Occam's Razor AKA the principle of parsimony clearly is not a design priciple when it comes to advertising, media campaigns, etc. Ads are replete with design intended to have an effect on the viewer.

I'm not suggesting that Occam's razor was a design principle in the production of the brochure; I'm recommending it as an analytical tool in deciding the intent of the designers.

You've interpreted elements of the design as suggesting a bias on the part of the designers. To me, that's akin to reading Nostradamus and deciding that a given stanza clearly predicted some past event.

oscarBravo

skelliser wrote: »

i agree that the hands are sneaky, there is no reason to have them in it other then to suggest that the treaty is all inclusive or something like that.

This is yet another subjective interpretation of the brochure's design.

What does this prove? To me it clearly indicates that if you're looking for tenuous evidence of bias, it isn't hard to find.

skelliser

why was the hand there in the first place, iirc in last years leaflet hand a pencil or something, can anyone dig it up?

edit: actually i think we should compare last years with this years

Scofflaw

Perhaps I am the only person who is somewhat perturbed by the coincidence between this thread opening and this one:

Captain Furball wrote:

Referendum Commission's - Lisbon Treaty Guide Not Impartial
Introduction

Recently we all have gotten the Referendum Commission's booklet through our doors.Let me just say, I don't think we are getting a fair and impartial guide for the people of this land.Here's why I feel this to be the case.


Front page of the Referendum Commission's guide.

http://i32.tinypic.com/2safomx.jpg

At first glance it looks harmless enough.What's the big deal you might be asking?Well, Imagine for a moment this an insurance companies logo.How does it make you feel? Good strong foundation,feeling Safe and secure?

Now how about we do a little experiment.Let's see what happens when I take away one of the hands.

http://i32.tinypic.com/155gdna.jpg

How do you feel about the insurance company now?Would you trust them to look after you and your families future?Perhaps you feel these people are not to be trusted?I don't blame you, I'd be thinking they're on the verge of collapse.


Which of the following two images would best suit the message it's trying to convey.

The Yes Image

http://i30.tinypic.com/2z5vrya.jpg

The No Image

http://i29.tinypic.com/sbstw0.jpg

Conclusion

This hand gesture has been carefully chosen and in my mind has the desired effect of making you feel both safe and secure and overall feeling positive towards the treaty.There are a lot more things I could point out but i feel they have been covered already in the media.Remember this is my insight of the booklet.

And this one, from someone apparently known to be a COIR representative:

Anyone else get the latest propaganda leaflet from the Referendum Commission in the door?

The hands make a very definite 'Y' for 'Yes' and it's as if the Lisbon Treaty is to be welcomed with open arms.

Another fine example of a useless, corrupt quango.

Is there a meme here? Or a campaign theme?

curiously,
Scofflaw

assetmadman

The consultants who designed the leaflets for the IRC are DMA. Here are some of the claims they make on their website:

[font=&quot]At DMA we have devised a strategic planning process called Orbital Branding that brings a high degree of tactical precision and strategic accuracy to every campaign. [/font]
[font=&quot]This produces our clients the type of cut-through that not only creates awareness but converts that awareness into customer response. The use of calculated and integrated marketing strategies the most appropriate media and outstanding creative execution ensures exceptional results. . .
[/font]

[font=&quot]Reaching consumers is easy. Getting them to respond is another matter entirely.[/font]
[font=&quot]Orbital branding means full 360o penetration of the consumer consciousness by using the right combination of media to present your message with absolute clarity. Orbital Branding ensures that your brand positioning and personality are communicated in a manner, which ensures barriers are broken down, objectives reached and targets achieved.[/font]
[font=&quot]With orbital branding, consumers don’t just get the message, they embrace it.

[/font][font=&quot]http://dma.ie/index.php/advertising_agency/interactive_advertising_agency[/font][font=&quot]


[/font]

marco_polo

I hope Patrica McKenna isn't building her case around this.

marco_polo

assetmadman wrote: »

The consultants who designed the leaflets for the IRC are DMA. Here are some of the claims they make on their website:

[font=&quot]At DMA we have devised a strategic planning process called Orbital Branding that brings a high degree of tactical precision and strategic accuracy to every campaign. [/font]
[font=&quot]This produces our clients the type of cut-through that not only creates awareness but converts that awareness into customer response. The use of calculated and integrated marketing strategies the most appropriate media and outstanding creative execution ensures exceptional results. . .
[/font]

[font=&quot]Reaching consumers is easy. Getting them to respond is another matter entirely.[/font]
[font=&quot]Orbital branding means full 360o penetration of the consumer consciousness by using the right combination of media to present your message with absolute clarity. Orbital Branding ensures that your brand positioning and personality are communicated in a manner, which ensures barriers are broken down, objectives reached and targets achieved.[/font]
[font=&quot]With orbital branding, consumers don’t just get the message, they embrace it.

[/font][font=&quot]http://dma.ie/index.php/advertising_agency/interactive_advertising_agency[/font][font=&quot]


[/font]

Sound like standards advertising agency BS.

skelliser

i think this is last years
http://yfrog.com/0w0001798b10drj

i dont know how to embedd it tho, little help!

assetmadman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps I am the only person who is somewhat perturbed by the coincidence between this thread opening and this one:



And this one, from someone apparently known to be a COIR representative:



Is there a meme here? Or a campaign theme?

curiously,
Scofflaw

It was reading the very weak analysis, as I saw it, of the moved, closed thread you refer to that made me want to post.

assetmadman

marco_polo wrote: »

Sound like standards advertising agency BS.

I guarantee if you were to employ an advertising consultant to deconstruct the design elements in the IRC guides I've drawn attention to, they would largely agree with me. (How can I be so confident of this? Guess.)

marco_polo

assetmadman wrote: »

I guarantee if you were to employ an advertising consultant to deconstruct the design elements in the IRC guides I've drawn attention to, they would largely agree with me. (How can I be so confident of this? Guess.)

Confirmation bias?

sink

assetmadman wrote: »

I guarantee if you were to employ an advertising consultant to deconstruct the design elements in the IRC guides I've drawn attention to, they would largely agree with me. (How can I be so confident of this? Guess.)

You're an advertising consultant! Do I win a prize?

Scofflaw

assetmadman wrote: »

I guarantee if you were to employ an advertising consultant to deconstruct the design elements in the IRC guides I've drawn attention to, they would largely agree with me. (How can I be so confident of this? Guess.)

They would probably agree that the hands were meant to inspire confidence, but might not agree that they were to inspire confidence in the Lisbon Treaty as opposed to the Referendum Commission. It's the latter conclusion that is tendentious.

cordially,
Scofflaw

skelliser

meglome

Worst conspiracy theory I read all day, oh wait this isn't the conspiracy theory forum. I'm all confused now.

assetmadman

Scofflaw wrote: »

They would probably agree that the hands were meant to inspire confidence, but might not agree that they were to inspire confidence in the Lisbon Treaty as opposed to the Referendum Commission. It's the latter conclusion that is tendentious.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You're referring to Captain Furball's reading, which is crap. If you'd like to debate my analysis . . .

assetmadman

meglome wrote: »

Worst conspiracy theory I read all day, oh wait this isn't the conspiracy theory forum. I'm all confused now.

You obviously don't know what a conspiracy theory is. To point out that a dice has bias, e.g. is not a perfect cube, doesn't imply any claims about how it came to be that way. Better, the intentions of those responsible for producing the dice. I'm only claiming the guides are biased.

bug

This image The front of the Independent Referendum Commission’s guide to the 2009 Lisbon Treaty referendum
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6...onleafletr.jpg

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've interpreted elements of the design as suggesting a bias on the part of the designers.
To me, that's akin to reading Nostradamus and deciding that a given stanza clearly predicted some past event.

In essence any pictorial representation has a meaning, the OP is examining the media which could be represented as biased.

Unwittingly chosen or not, the choice of image above and the impact it may or may not have on the reader, it's interpretations, in fact, the use of imagery in such a document at all, are all fairly valid and interesting I think.

Scofflaw

assetmadman wrote: »

You're referring to Captain Furball's reading, which is crap. If you'd like to debate my analysis . . .

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

meglome

assetmadman wrote: »

You obviously don't know what a conspiracy theory is. To point out that a dice has bias, e.g. is not a perfect cube, doesn't imply any claims about how it came to be that way.

conspiracy theory
 
–noun
1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.
2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

You're supplying even less proof than most of the CT's I've come across. So I enjoyed your story and listened to your opinion but with so little proof = conspiracy theory.

bug

meglome wrote: »

You're supplying even less proof than most of the CT's I've come across. So I enjoyed your story and listened to your opinion but with so little proof = conspiracy theory.

Since when did pictorial representations printed on documents and their different interpretation by the people reading them become the stuff of conspiracy?

Scofflaw

bug wrote: »

Since when did pictorial representations printed on documents and their different interpretation by the people reading them become the stuff of conspiracy?

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

Exanxious

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

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.

meglome

bug wrote: »

Since when did pictorial representations printed on documents and their different interpretation by the people reading them become the stuff of conspiracy?

Well pretty much as Scofflaw says.

And you should take a read of the CT forum and see just how tenuous the CT's often are.

Scofflaw

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.

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

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