tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post5814439348949844665..comments2024-03-28T09:22:36.967+13:00Comments on Offsetting Behaviour: Government Cartoons*Eric Cramptonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-69967036538305739622012-05-16T13:32:58.851+12:002012-05-16T13:32:58.851+12:00I think we differ a bit on starting premises, Keit...I think we differ a bit on starting premises, Keith. Most people rightly recognize that the tobacco industry would have particular policy preferences that largely correspond with doing well by their shareholders. And so they're pretty quick to discount funded groups or research. I think people go a bit too far in their updating on this one; while I think the tobacco industry is wrong about counterfeiting on plain packaging (just put anti-counterfeiting stuff on the plain packs!), they're not always wrong just because they have interests.<br /><br />But the Ministry of Health has its own pretty strong interests. One faction has what approaches religious zealotry on the tobacco file - it's a moral crusade. That's the bunch that released the preliminary tobacco costings without those numbers having gone through any QA. Another set will push anti-tobacco policy because, whether it's efficient in a global sense, it may reduce costs incurred by MoH [I'm not convinced it actually does in a life-cycle sense, but am open to the idea that it could]. And there are a regrettably small number who are numerate truth-seekers. <br /><br />How many people hearing on the radio "ASH Spokesperson Ben Youdan argues..." recognize that ASH is mostly an extension of the Ministry of Health (or, for that matter, an extension of the less credible part of it?)<br /><br />You are definitely right that public understanding of funding sources would lead them to discount ACR a lot more than they'd discount ASH. But once we allow for that the public suffers one-sided scepticism about funding sources, things get more complicated.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-9864055745382121852012-05-16T13:06:16.049+12:002012-05-16T13:06:16.049+12:00So a) we've gone beyond what they are or what ...So a) we've gone beyond what they are or what they claim they are, and on to how they are perceived, and b) the falseness of that perception is that they're seen as 50% publicly-funded health nazis as opposed to 90% publicly-funded health nazis.<br /><br />That's pretty goddamn nuanced.<br /><br />The purpose of astroturfing is to create a false front because the message won't be credible if people found out its true author. Do you agree with me on this point?<br /><br />If so, the litmus test for astroturfing is pretty simple. Does an organisation's message become less credible once its backers are revealed? Is that organisation's very existence based on obfuscating that link?Keith Nghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15177576350087791720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-34106685723317832312012-05-16T11:35:22.370+12:002012-05-16T11:35:22.370+12:00of topic, but poor scots...
http://www.guardian.c...of topic, but poor scots...<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/may/14/scotland-minimum-alcohol-price-effectAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-24604898806915005192012-05-16T11:03:10.240+12:002012-05-16T11:03:10.240+12:00I'd agree except that that isn't the way t...I'd agree except that that isn't the way the media plays ASH, SFC or the others. <br /><br />The same way that you found the media forgot that ACR was really tobacco-funded, the media paints ASH etc as being independent advocacy groups rather than being clients of the Ministry of Health.<br /><br />Look at the websites for NZ Drug Foundation, ASH, SFC and the rest. They all say they're funded by a mix of private donations and government grants. But you have to head over to the annual reports to find out that 89% of ASH's funding is government contracts and only 5% is private donations. ASH fights tobacco in the interests of the Ministry of Health. The SmokeFree coalition's site is more upfront, stating that the bulk of its funding is from government grants. <br /><br />I'll draw an equivalence between corporate astroturfs and government ones where they're both commonly portrayed as something other than arms of their funders.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-65431043879146511902012-05-16T10:24:38.423+12:002012-05-16T10:24:38.423+12:00Please stop using the word astroturf.
ACR claimed...Please stop using the word astroturf.<br /><br />ACR claimed to funded by smaller retailers to represent the interests of small retailers, when virtually none of its "members" had given money or were aware of its activities. Its funding came from Imperial Tobacco (and others) to fight tobacco legislation in the interest of Imperial Tobacco. This difference - the fact that it's very existence is a lie - is why it's astroturfing, and why it's a problem.<br /><br />ASH does not hide its intentions (anti-smoking) nor its funding (primarily government). The fact that they are funded by government but are not government does not make it astroturfing. We don't, for example, say that Glenn Inwood is astroturfing when he represents Japanese whalers because he is neither Japanese nor (presumably) a whaler.<br /><br />The legitimacy of a government-funded NGO lobbying government is an entirely separate issue which has nothing to do with astroturfing. The use of the term on public health NGOs is a deliberate attempt by tobacco lobbyist to try to obfuscate the issue and legitimise their own tactics by saying everyone is "astroturfing". Please don't do the same.Keith Nghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15177576350087791720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-15433046518762716102012-05-16T08:15:55.502+12:002012-05-16T08:15:55.502+12:00The SSC's rule against lobbying is certainly e...The SSC's rule against lobbying is certainly enlightened, would be nice to see it enforced here. Definitely a lot better than the laws surrounding America's Director of National Drug Control Policy (commonly known as the "drug czar") who is under statutory obligation to "take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of [any Schedule A] substance" -- which essentially amounts to a mandate to misrepresent the science and put a thumb on the scale of drug- research (especially since the same provision prohibits the drug control office from funding any research "relating to legalization".kiwi davehttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.com