Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Activism and Dishonesty

03:11 / 11.04.02

I recently finished a paper on food irradiation for my nuclear issues class. During my research, I noticed that all of the anti-irradiation activists I found information on were being dishonest regarding the scientific information they were handing out. Basically, out of the 1000+ studies that have been done on this issue over the past seventy-five years, they picked the twenty to thirty that supported their position, and ignored the rest. For example, one author mentioned that irradiated food caused heart leisions in mice. However, he somehow forgot to mention the numerous studies which occured afterwards on this issue (involving a total of about 5000 rodents) which failed to show even one heart leision.

While I would be happy to discuss the issue of irradiation safety in the laboratory section if anyone is interested, irradiation isn't the focus of the topic. Instead, I am interested in asking the question, "If you made a similar discovery about a group of activists, how much would it taint your opinion of activists working on related projects?"

For example, my immediate response upon hearing a complaint about nuclear power, genetically modified foods, or pesticides, which are also opposed by the same group of activists, is to think, "Bullshit, I bet they're lying about that too." I know that this isn't a completely reasonable thought process, and it certainly won't prevent me from seeking out more information on those topics. However, my preconceptions about this group have been seriously altered. So, how about it, is this a rational decision based on my experiences, or am I overreacting in a completely asinine manner?

03:26 / 11.04.02

The last one. You formed an opinion on irradiation based on some research you did. Why not do the research on [any other thing?]

03:52 / 11.04.02

Actually, I think it's relatively common for NGO and party-based 'activists' to misrepresent or over-simplify their information. Basically, its because they (mistakenly) think they're smarter than the people they're trying to recruit - that they'll confuse people if they say, for example, some studies have shown that irradiated food causes heart lesions in mice, but others have contradicted this, their Joe Bloggs target audience won't be able to figure out what it means. They've inherited this sort of attitude, obviously, from mainstream political parties, mass media, universities, and the other organs of power they aspire to become part of/replace.

Obviously, this doesn't mean the activists are wrong that irradiated or gm food or whatever is bad, and it doesn't mean all activists are fuckheads. On the specific question, 'If you made a similar discovery about a group of activists, how much would it taint your opinion of activists working on related projects?', I think not much. For example, I know plenty of groups involved in refugee politics who frequently misrepresent (or misunderstand) various details to make 'refugees' more sympathetic. It annoys me, but on the other hand, none of these groups has come close to either the level of dishonesty, or the PR budget, used by the government to advance the opposite case. More important, I know there are smart, critical activists who are on to it enough not to need to lie or underestimate their 'audiences' - and I know that because I found them, not because I sat around criticising the lousy ones.

18:12 / 11.04.02

I remember having problems with the Canadian Federation of Students and their 'anti-tuition hike' ads around campus. I supported them in their fight to stop the hikes, but all their ads used really, really out of scale graphs and charts to make it look like it was worse than it was... it was one of the things that really made me dislike them as a group.

01:33 / 12.04.02

The problem with, uh, selective exageration of this nature is not so much that I neccessaryily believe that the group is lying to me on related issues, but that their opposition will sieze on it when found out and attack them on that basis, eroding their credibility for the large middle mass of the population. So, it effects my opinion of them in that I think they're excercising very poor judgement, and I wonder about their judgment on other things as well.

20:02 / 12.04.02

As Seaman Crunchy points out the notion of a stupid 'Joe Bloggs target audience' who 'wont be able to figure out what it means' is a myth. If you think that the truth is out there then maybe you should stick to X-Files for your research. If you think that any side presents the 'correct'side then think again, but do it for yourself.

When judging a peice of activist or gov. or NGO or corporate propaganda I first ask myself what the group has to gain by making a stink. Everyones hands are dirty to some extent and part of being a grown up in this big bad world is learning to read between the lines. Good luck finding the whiter than white amongst all these shades of grey. But if I had to choose between lies peddled by some money making organisation trying to justify low cost/big proffits and those peddled by those trying to broaden the debate I know what my instincts would whisper.

01:27 / 13.04.02

But if I had to choose between lies peddled by some money making organisation trying to justify low cost/big proffits and those peddled by those trying to broaden the debate I know what my instincts would whisper.

I view that as almost a Bush v. Gore choice. The higher standard of conduct that I expect from the Good Guys is exactly that which makes them good.

11:02 / 14.04.02

The curse of idealism. If we are one hundred percent convinced of our case then a little dishonesty to iron out the odd inconsistency hardly seems wrong. To be encouraged, even.
The world needs idealists though.

00:17 / 16.04.02

If you think that the truth is out there then maybe you should stick to X-Files for your research. If you think that any side presents the 'correct' side then think again, but do it for yourself.

Good luck finding the whiter than white amongst all these shades of grey.

Are you arguing that there isn't a correct opinion that can be arrived by the vast majority of people exhibiting rational thought on any issue?

But if I had to choose between lies peddled by some money making organisation trying to justify low cost/big proffits and those peddled by those trying to broaden the debate I know what my instincts would whisper.

As far as I can tell, you seem to be saying that everyone is lying anyway, so I should pick the side with the best intentions? I just want to be clear on this.

If we are one hundred percent convinced of our case then a little dishonesty to iron out the odd inconsistency hardly seems wrong. To be encouraged, even.

But, I make my decisions of right and wrong based on logic, experience, and facts, not on someone's intentions or idealism. In addition, I consider misrepresenting data to be an attempt to rob me of one of the tools I use to judge an issue.

The world needs idealists though.

On the contrary, I would argue that the world doesn't need some of its religious fundamentalist idealists, or idealists from a good number of other groups.