A quick take from Anton Pelinka, who seems to be theAustrian political scientist most quoted in the press, on whether the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) is taking votes that would otherwise go to the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ).
He seems to argue at least for the 2017 national election that it's not a significant number (Vorwärts-was sonst? Die Zeit 27.09.2018), "Most of the workers who voted for the [FPÖ] in 2017 were never SPÖ voters." ("Die meisten der Arbeiterinnen und Arbeiter, die 2017 die Freiheitlichen gewählt haben, waren nie SPÖ-Wahler.")
But he doesn't elaborate. And his comment as formulated doesn't address how many 2017 FPÖ voters were potentially swing voters open to the SPÖ.
Showing posts with label fpö. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fpö. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 03, 2018
Monday, October 01, 2018
Arguing with facts against polemics and false claims
There is a lot of public discussion these days over pseudoscience, political conspiracy theories, crackpot history, malicious propgaganda and what the best ways to combat them may be.
One of the surprising findings of some studies is that in some fashion, provide correct information to debunk the false claims can have the effect of reinforcing belief in the false claim.
That has always struck me as intuitively wrong. I even suspect it's sometimes offered in politics in the US as a way to get Democrats to not bother to debunk the constant stream of misinformation and falsehood against Democrats from FOX News, Breitbart, Infowars, and various other rightwing media, including alt-right sources and foreign nations' propaganda operations.
Four scholars from the University of Illinois and the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania published their results on their own study of that problem, Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation Psychological Science 28:11 (2017).
They found that in some cases, the reverse-debunking effect occurs, in which hearing the correct information can indeed reinforce the false belief. But it doesn't have to.
They offer the following suggestions for avoiding that result in the sense of a communication or linguistic strategy:
In other words, the harder people think about beliefs with which they had established an identification, the harder it may be for them to change their minds.
The second recommendations gets to the issue of framing, which has been much discussed in American politics, particularly i response to the work and recommendations of George Lakoff. Aside from providing an appropriate context for discussion, it also means providing not just facts rebutting the bad information but a new framework for understanding the matter, a different perspective.
Following from that, the third recommendation emphasizes providing the correct information as distinct from just refuting the bad. With a reminder that it won't always work! But other times it will.
The Annenberg Center provides a summary of the article here, "Debunking study suggests ways to counter misinformation and correct 'fake news'." ScienceDaily09/09/2017.
In the context of the immigration issue which is roiling the politics of the United States and the European Union, another implication of the first recommendation is important.
Speaking of this persistence-of-mistinformation effect, Stephan Lewandowsky notes, "one of the ways to get around that is to tell people not just that something is false, but tell them what's true. Alternative information makes it much easier to update your memory." (Susannah Locke interview, How to debunk false beliefs without having it backfire Vox 04/25/2018)
Lewandowsky also notes that the setting of a classroom-type situation is different from that in which political information and disinformation is often conveyed:
The Austrian broadcaster ORF 2 program Im Zentrum carried a report last night (30.09.2018) on Politik und Pressefreiheit - Der Kampf um Macht und Wahrheit (video available at the link through October 7) on the status of press freedom in Austria today. It included Walter Rosenkranz, the head of the parliamentary club for the far-right FPÖ, which is the junior partner in the current national government; Beate Meinl-Reisinger, head of the NEOS party which holds seats in Parliament; Georg Wailand, the deputy chief editor of Austria's most widely circulated paper Kronen Zeitung; Armin Thurnher, publisher of the influential Vienna weekly Falter; and, Reinhard Kreissl, a sociologist of crime.
Rosenkranz defended efforts by the FPÖ-led Interior Ministry to encourage police to publicize details about the backgrounds of people suspected in violent crimes. Which is consistent with anti-immigrant propaganda efforts to stigmatize immigrants as more likely to commit crimes than native Austrians, which the crime statistics consistently show is not the case. There was some discussion about crime statistics and how to interpret them, including discussion about how the crime rate has been declining in Austria. Rosenkranz used the discussion to try to associate rape in particular with immigrants. Meinl-Reisinge challenged him into admitting that the most common national origin of the foreign rapists is Germany. The xenophobes preferred image of foreign rapists is that of an Afghan, Arab, or African perpetrator. This is similar to Donald Trump's anti-Latino propaganda.
My impression was that the discussion got the point across to anyone in the audience actually paying attention that the impression left by xenophobic agitators that Austrians are increasingly in danger of violent crime and it is the fault of immigrants, both of which ideas are false. On the other hand, Rosenkranz did what he could to highlight the image of foreign rapists, which presumably also reinforced that narrative in some viewers' minds. Debunking is complicated.
Walter Hämmerle reports in Die Schwarzmaler Wiener Zeitung 29.09.2018 that according to the FPÖ-led Interior Ministry's information, there were 510 thousand criminal complaints in Austria in 2017, which "is the lowest number in ten years." He observes that the numbers that are there include some serious concerns, "but taken in themselves provide no rational justification for the general pessimism" and general security in Austria.
One of the surprising findings of some studies is that in some fashion, provide correct information to debunk the false claims can have the effect of reinforcing belief in the false claim.
That has always struck me as intuitively wrong. I even suspect it's sometimes offered in politics in the US as a way to get Democrats to not bother to debunk the constant stream of misinformation and falsehood against Democrats from FOX News, Breitbart, Infowars, and various other rightwing media, including alt-right sources and foreign nations' propaganda operations.
Four scholars from the University of Illinois and the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania published their results on their own study of that problem, Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation Psychological Science 28:11 (2017).
They found that in some cases, the reverse-debunking effect occurs, in which hearing the correct information can indeed reinforce the false belief. But it doesn't have to.
They offer the following suggestions for avoiding that result in the sense of a communication or linguistic strategy:
Recommendation 1: reduce the generation of arguments in line with the misinformation.The first of the recommendations is the most troubling one. Because it suggests that the more detailed the argument against a set of misinformation is, the more likely the exchange is to strengthen the false belief. But this doesn't apply to casually held beliefs. As they explain, "The false beliefs on which we focus here occur when the audience initially believes misinformation and that misinformation persists or continues to exert psychological influence after it has been rebutted." If people hold a belief strongly and have thought and talked about the false enough have adduced multiple reasons for believing it, giving them a lot of arguments against it can kick off this proces: "when the elaboration process organizes, updates, and integrates elements of information, generating explanations in line with the initial misinformation, this process may create a network of confirming causal accounts about the misinformation in memory."
Recommendation 2: create conditions that facilitate scrutiny and counterarguing of misinformation.
Recommendation 3: correct misinformation with new detailed information but keep expectations low.
In other words, the harder people think about beliefs with which they had established an identification, the harder it may be for them to change their minds.
The second recommendations gets to the issue of framing, which has been much discussed in American politics, particularly i response to the work and recommendations of George Lakoff. Aside from providing an appropriate context for discussion, it also means providing not just facts rebutting the bad information but a new framework for understanding the matter, a different perspective.
Following from that, the third recommendation emphasizes providing the correct information as distinct from just refuting the bad. With a reminder that it won't always work! But other times it will.
The Annenberg Center provides a summary of the article here, "Debunking study suggests ways to counter misinformation and correct 'fake news'." ScienceDaily09/09/2017.
In the context of the immigration issue which is roiling the politics of the United States and the European Union, another implication of the first recommendation is important.
Speaking of this persistence-of-mistinformation effect, Stephan Lewandowsky notes, "one of the ways to get around that is to tell people not just that something is false, but tell them what's true. Alternative information makes it much easier to update your memory." (Susannah Locke interview, How to debunk false beliefs without having it backfire Vox 04/25/2018)
Lewandowsky also notes that the setting of a classroom-type situation is different from that in which political information and disinformation is often conveyed:
If you have a situation like a classroom where people are forced to sit down and pay attention, that's when more information is helpful. There's a lot of evidence of this in educational psychology.I've been thinking I should devote more posts to factual information on the immgration issue. Hearing the reality behind a strongly held belief that is associated with a person's political or cultural identity won't necessarily change their mind. But reality does matter!
Now the problem is in a sort of casual situation, people listening to the radio or having a superficial conversation — that's where the information deficit model doesn't apply. And superficially just throwing information at people probably will make them tune out. So you've got to be careful when you're talking about public discourse, TV, radio, media.
The Austrian broadcaster ORF 2 program Im Zentrum carried a report last night (30.09.2018) on Politik und Pressefreiheit - Der Kampf um Macht und Wahrheit (video available at the link through October 7) on the status of press freedom in Austria today. It included Walter Rosenkranz, the head of the parliamentary club for the far-right FPÖ, which is the junior partner in the current national government; Beate Meinl-Reisinger, head of the NEOS party which holds seats in Parliament; Georg Wailand, the deputy chief editor of Austria's most widely circulated paper Kronen Zeitung; Armin Thurnher, publisher of the influential Vienna weekly Falter; and, Reinhard Kreissl, a sociologist of crime.
Rosenkranz defended efforts by the FPÖ-led Interior Ministry to encourage police to publicize details about the backgrounds of people suspected in violent crimes. Which is consistent with anti-immigrant propaganda efforts to stigmatize immigrants as more likely to commit crimes than native Austrians, which the crime statistics consistently show is not the case. There was some discussion about crime statistics and how to interpret them, including discussion about how the crime rate has been declining in Austria. Rosenkranz used the discussion to try to associate rape in particular with immigrants. Meinl-Reisinge challenged him into admitting that the most common national origin of the foreign rapists is Germany. The xenophobes preferred image of foreign rapists is that of an Afghan, Arab, or African perpetrator. This is similar to Donald Trump's anti-Latino propaganda.
My impression was that the discussion got the point across to anyone in the audience actually paying attention that the impression left by xenophobic agitators that Austrians are increasingly in danger of violent crime and it is the fault of immigrants, both of which ideas are false. On the other hand, Rosenkranz did what he could to highlight the image of foreign rapists, which presumably also reinforced that narrative in some viewers' minds. Debunking is complicated.
Walter Hämmerle reports in Die Schwarzmaler Wiener Zeitung 29.09.2018 that according to the FPÖ-led Interior Ministry's information, there were 510 thousand criminal complaints in Austria in 2017, which "is the lowest number in ten years." He observes that the numbers that are there include some serious concerns, "but taken in themselves provide no rational justification for the general pessimism" and general security in Austria.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Xenophobia, the Austrian right, and the rescue ship Aquarius
I'm not sure whether this is more silly than it is obnoxious, although it was presumably meant to be the latter: FPÖ will "Heimat" in Oberösterreichs Landesverfassung verankern Die Presse 08.06.2018.
The state government in the Austrian state of Upper Austria is run by a coalition of the conservative, Christian Democratic People's Party (ÖVP) and the far right, anti-immigrant "Freedom" Party (FPÖ), the same party combination currently running the national government. This proposal was announced by Vice Governor Manfred Haimbuchner (FPÖ) aund FPÖ state party leader Herwig Mahr.
The language they are proposing to be included in the state constitution reads, "Das Land OÖ bekennt sich zur Heimatpflege durch das Bewahren der landestypischen Brauchtümer und Traditionen" ("The state of Upper Austria commits itself to preserve the Heimat through guarding the customs and traditions typical to the state.") Haimbuchner suggested that handshaking would be protected by the provision. And also would prevent pork from being banned.
We aren't exactly talking high constitutional theory here.
As you might guess, protecting pork against being banned is a dumb-as-dirt Islamophobic pitch. If there is any proposal in the Austrian Parliament or the Upper Austrian Landtag to ban pork, it has somehow escaped my notice. And, I'm guessing, everyone else's, too. It a non-solution to a non-problem.
The wording cited is so vague I wonder if it would have any definable effect at all. But putting dumb and irrelevant stuff is always a bad idea. Because some judge may seize on it as a way to make an absurdly political decision that makes no sense. Like, say, ruling that a health-food grocery has to close because it doesn't sell pork there. Or whatever.
Really, it's just cheap publicity for Islamophobic hate propaganda.
This, on the other hand is considerably more serious. Austrian Vice Chancellor and head of the xenophobic FPÖ, H.C. Strache
The Strache statement says, "Under the new Italian Interior Minister Salvini, illegal migration will no longer be tolerated. Good so!" The Austrian anti-foreigner right use "migrant" to refer to desperate refugees from war zones being rescued from drowning to suggest they are just trying to come mooch off good Christian white Europeans.
He's talking about the ship Aquarius, a humanitarian rescue ship that saves people from being drowned in the Mediterranean trying to flee from the Libyan coast on often unsafe boats. The rescue ship has been stranded mid-way between Italy and Malta, with both countries refusing it permission to land. Angela Giuffrida reports in Mediterranean rescue vessel crew keep migrants calm during standoff Guardian 06/11/2018:
What do they suggest that Italy and/or Malta do with this boat? Just sink it? Let all the people on it drown? It's a serious question.
The new social-democratic Prime Minister of Spain has a more human response:
Demagogic anti-immigrant rhetoric leads to this eventually leads to callousness and brutality.
It always worth remembering in connection with news about the chronic refugee crisis in Europe that a major contributor, currently most likely the main cause, is the wars in the Greater Middle East the last two decades, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Yemen and Syria, mightily encouraged by the US and other NATO powers not just diplomatically but by direct intervention and massive arms sales to the belligerent parties. A war against Iran would add yet another major source of refugees.
The state government in the Austrian state of Upper Austria is run by a coalition of the conservative, Christian Democratic People's Party (ÖVP) and the far right, anti-immigrant "Freedom" Party (FPÖ), the same party combination currently running the national government. This proposal was announced by Vice Governor Manfred Haimbuchner (FPÖ) aund FPÖ state party leader Herwig Mahr.
The language they are proposing to be included in the state constitution reads, "Das Land OÖ bekennt sich zur Heimatpflege durch das Bewahren der landestypischen Brauchtümer und Traditionen" ("The state of Upper Austria commits itself to preserve the Heimat through guarding the customs and traditions typical to the state.") Haimbuchner suggested that handshaking would be protected by the provision. And also would prevent pork from being banned.
We aren't exactly talking high constitutional theory here.
As you might guess, protecting pork against being banned is a dumb-as-dirt Islamophobic pitch. If there is any proposal in the Austrian Parliament or the Upper Austrian Landtag to ban pork, it has somehow escaped my notice. And, I'm guessing, everyone else's, too. It a non-solution to a non-problem.
The wording cited is so vague I wonder if it would have any definable effect at all. But putting dumb and irrelevant stuff is always a bad idea. Because some judge may seize on it as a way to make an absurdly political decision that makes no sense. Like, say, ruling that a health-food grocery has to close because it doesn't sell pork there. Or whatever.
Really, it's just cheap publicity for Islamophobic hate propaganda.
This, on the other hand is considerably more serious. Austrian Vice Chancellor and head of the xenophobic FPÖ, H.C. Strache
He's talking about the ship Aquarius, a humanitarian rescue ship that saves people from being drowned in the Mediterranean trying to flee from the Libyan coast on often unsafe boats. The rescue ship has been stranded mid-way between Italy and Malta, with both countries refusing it permission to land. Angela Giuffrida reports in Mediterranean rescue vessel crew keep migrants calm during standoff Guardian 06/11/2018:
Onboard the vessel are 629 people, including 123 unaccompanied minors, 11 babies and seven pregnant woman. The ship is operated by the French-German charity SOS Méditerranée and has been undertaking risky year-round, search-and-rescue missions in waters north of Libya since 2015.So, seriously, do Strache and his Burschenscaften party have any actual solutions to refugee problems like this other than to bitch and moan about foreigners?
Victoria Russell, a spokeswoman for Doctors Without Borders (MSF), which has staff working on the boat, said the situation was under control but could change at any moment.
“None of the people on board have any idea about this whole diplomatic standoff that is unfolding around them, but they are starting to ask questions: why has the ship stopped?” she said. ...
More than 15 people onboard have serious chemical fuel burns requiring regular care, due to oil spills from the cheaply made rubber boats they travelled in from Libya. There are also a number of cases that require orthopaedic surgery.
Some of the passengers had to be resuscitated after almost drowning during a challenging overnight rescue operation on Saturday.
“They have sea water on their lungs … they’re stable right now, but it could change at any moment, and they would need assistance that we can’t provide on the boat,” said Russell.
What do they suggest that Italy and/or Malta do with this boat? Just sink it? Let all the people on it drown? It's a serious question.
The new social-democratic Prime Minister of Spain has a more human response:
I have given instructions for Spain to welcome the #Aquarius ship in the Port of Valencia. It is our obligation to provide these 600 people a safe harbor. We comply with international commitments regarding humanitarian emergencies.
— Pedro Sánchez (@sanchezcastejon) June 11, 2018
It always worth remembering in connection with news about the chronic refugee crisis in Europe that a major contributor, currently most likely the main cause, is the wars in the Greater Middle East the last two decades, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Yemen and Syria, mightily encouraged by the US and other NATO powers not just diplomatically but by direct intervention and massive arms sales to the belligerent parties. A war against Iran would add yet another major source of refugees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)