As I'm registered with the Yes To Fairer Votes campaign (which seeks a Yes vote in the AV referendum in May), I received an email yesterday inviting me to put my name to a petition calling on the BBC to reverse their decision - taken under pressure from the No side - to stop referring to AV as "electoral reform". Caron Lindsay later took up the issue by quoting the dictionary definition of the word "reform", and pointing out -
"By any standards, changing the voting system so that MPs have to work harder to win the trust of half of their electorate is a change for the better, and deserves to be called a reform."
Although I entirely agree with that, I must say that in the context of the petition it's a slightly odd, and almost certainly counter-productive, argument to be putting forward. Essentially it invites the BBC to accept the belief of the Yes campaign that AV represents a positive change, and reject the belief of the No campaign that it represents a backward step. How can they possibly do that without contravening the requirement for impartiality?
A much better argument to advance is surely that of consistency. The broadcasters seem to have no difficulty whatever buying into the concept of public service "reform", NHS "reform", welfare "reform", etc, etc, in spite of the fact that there are any number of people in each case who regard such a label as utterly outrageous. The only justification I can think of is that the broadcasters imagine themselves to be effectively "quoting" the proponents of change, without necessarily endorsing the sentiment that it is a change for the better. Well, surely the same principle applies here? The proponents of AV call it electoral reform, therefore so should the broadcasters. Either that, or I look forward to not hearing the Orwellian phrase "welfare reform" uttered by a newsreader ever again.
Ok, so you're half there.
ReplyDeleteYou realise that by saying AV is a reform that you are supporting it so the BBC cannot use it in reference to the referendum. (where is your evidence that the no campaign put pressure on the BBC? I mean , if you accept it is biased , isn't it more plausible tyey cracked open a dictionary too?)
BTW Caron is misinformed ( or trying to misinform) about AV it does not require 50% ' of their electorate' to vote for them for mps to win.
Let's get on to the issue of reform.
What can be called a reform? In my mind , anything which the majority of people in the UK decide is a reform.
So if AV wins, I will not consider it reform but I will accept the countries democratic right to decide for itself.
This follows on to the government calling this reforms, the government (being the majority of elected mps) represent the people. So if they say it is a reform they are speaking on behalf of a majority of the country.
Anyway, even if you do not accept my last point, you seem to accept that the BBC calling AV a reform is unfair and impartial towards the no campaign.
So maybe you should write to them to stop them using reform at all. Not asking them to fix what you see is impartiality when they support the governments view, by being impartial on a completely unrelated issue
"you seem to accept that the BBC calling AV a reform is unfair and impartial towards the no campaign"
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if they used the word "reform" for the reason Caron suggested, then that would be a breach of impartiality. But there must be other justifications for the use of the word, otherwise it wouldn't be used endlessly by "impartial broadcasters" in relation to welfare and the public services. So whatever those reasons are (I've suggested one that strikes me as vaguely plausible) they must also apply to AV, and on the basis of seeking consistency I therefore fully support the petition.
"BTW Caron is misinformed ( or trying to misinform) about AV it does not require 50% ' of their electorate' to vote for them for mps to win."
Come now, that's a point of pedantry. I'm sure everyone knows perfectly well what Caron meant. But if we are going to be pedantic, it renders this claim of yours -
"So if they say it is a reform they are speaking on behalf of a majority of the country."
- utterly nonsensical. What percentage of the registered electorate voted for the "majority Labour government" in 2005? Less than 25%, wasn't it? If that's all the support we need to expect the broadcasters to brand AV a reform, then we're laughing. In any case, your apparent suggestion that it's perfectly OK for broadcasters to use what you evidently regard as biased langauge as long as it's in relation to a policy put forward by the government of the day is rather troubling. Perhaps the BBC should have been putting out public information broadcasts in 1990 to explain the benefits of the poll tax?
"isn't it more plausible they cracked open a dictionary too?"
Well, in all the years of referring to "welfare reform" it's certainly never occurred to them to open a dictionary before. It's taken them about five minutes of this campaign.
Forgive me, but if you do not accept that the BBC saying AV is a reform is bias why did you write
ReplyDelete"Essentially it invites the BBC to accept the belief of the Yes campaign that AV represents a positive change, and reject the belief of the No campaign that it represents a backward step."
Seems to me you are fully aware what reform means.
This is the first issue.
We have readily agreed that reform suggests improvement and therefore in order to stay unbiased the BBC must refrain from calling it reform.
The second part of the argument, which is completely irrelevant to the referendum as it involves neither the 'Yes' nor the 'NO' campaign is previous use of the word reform.
Either you agree with me that the UK parliament (the govenrment being a majority of it) is the representative body of the UK people, or you don't.
You either agree with me that if more people think something is an improvement than do not, that we can call it an improvement (I.E. you believe that referendums should exist) or you do not.
However what the other uses of the word Reform does not relate to, is the FACT that the definition of reform is "Improvement by change" and cannot be used fairer to describe AV if someone wishes to remain neutral.
The most important point that everyone has ignored is this.
Why does it matter?
This is the single question that should be asked to Yes2AV again and again, because if Yes2AV really thought the word just meant 'Change', why is that such a big issue when other words..for example CHANGE can be used instead with exactly the same meaning?
How is it unfair? Does it help the no2av campaign in any way? No.
So why does changing the word 'reform' to change affect the Yes campaign in anyway if that is what they are claiming it means?
I would be interested in your answer. Please remember though, the answer cannot be just "we just want a duck to be called a duck" because this doesn't explain why you believe it is unfair.
"Seems to me you are fully aware what reform means."
ReplyDeleteI'm hardly going to dispute that. As I've already explained umpteen times that what I'm calling for is consistency, I'm not really sure what it is you think you're proving. I don't mind how that consistency is achieved, and if the broadcasters want to finally stop referring to the destructive changes being visited upon the welfare system and the English NHS as "reform", that would be grand. But in the real world, I think we're more likely to achieve consistency by having them refer to electoral reform as...well, electoral reform.
"Either you agree with me that the UK parliament (the govenrment being a majority of it) is the representative body of the UK people, or you don't."
If I thought it was representative of the people of the UK, I'd hardly think there was a need for electoral reform, would I?
"You either agree with me that if more people think something is an improvement than do not, that we can call it an improvement (I.E. you believe that referendums should exist) or you do not."
What is it these little "choices" of yours are reminding me of? Oh yes - "you're either with us, or you're with the turrrsts". My answer is the same as it was to George W Bush.
To spell it out, no I do not think the broadcasters should drop their impartiality EVEN IF it's in relation to something supported by a government elected by the majority - rarely, if ever, the case under our present voting system. If they did, that would make them cheerleaders for the government - do you really think that's their role in a liberal democracy?
Ok, so your calling for consistency..i.e. you know that reform means "Improve by change, but because the BBC used it in a completed unrelated event(s) when there wasn't a referendum you think it won't be fair if they are not bias against the no campaign.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't make much sense to me.
We can disagree on how the BBC use the words to reflect governmental reforms or 'reforms', what it doesn't mean is that when you look at the upcoming referendum the Yes campaign have the right to demand preferential treatment.
If you do not wish the BBC to drop their impartiality and you believe using the word reform isn't impartial, surely you should be trying to stop it being used full stop, not complain when it is used for the government and then complain when it isn't used to support your own view?
We're going round in circles, but the answer to your point is contained in the original post. I don't think - and I'd suggest this is fairly self-evident - that the use of the word reform can be justified on either the basis Caron suggests (I think something is a change for the better) or the one you suggest (the government thinks something is a change for the better). But the broadcasters evidently think it can be justified without compromising their impartiality, given that they use it repeatedly in relation to welfare and public services. I'm simply pointing out that whatever that justification is, it must also apply to AV.
ReplyDeleteAs for what the justication might be, I've already suggested that whenever they use the word they might imagine themselves to be "quoting" the proponents of change, ie. without endorsing the word themselves. Another possibility is that they're using the word in a literalistic and neutral sense, ie. "re" + "form" = change. If the latter, then how can they possibly not use it in relation to AV?
Hmm, thought I had replied to this.
ReplyDeleteJust a very brief run down of the points I made as I am now on my phone,
1) if we can admit that using the word reform is impartial then we can say it shouldn't be used for this referendum.
2) you seem to be arguing to redress an imbalance that doesn't exist. The no campaign have never benefited from partiality from the BBC, yet you seem to be arguing that the BBC should be partial to yes to AV.
This will only create unfairness in the referendum when it doesn't already exist
* not impartial
ReplyDeletePerhaps it would be better if the word used to describe changes in policy, which by and large will be considered progression by some and regression by others, were “re-form”, which means quite simply ‘to form again’.
ReplyDeleteEven then I feel we would hit a problem. To form, is to create. If you re-form something, this would suggest to me something is unformed.
ReplyDeleteFar safer to just call it change, that way we cut out all doubt and it is the easiest , honest and most accurate word to describe..er..change .