"Government Spin: Why the Department of Health Was Wrong to Manipulate the Media"
The latest strike by resident doctors has sparked widespread debate, with many questioning why the British Medical Association went ahead with the industrial action despite claiming that most doctors did not support it. A recent poll conducted by Savanta, a reputable survey research company, revealed that as many as 69% of doctors backed the strike, while only 12% were opposed. However, this finding was conveniently omitted from the Times' front-page story, instead relying on a different question that painted a very different picture.
The truth came out six days later, when the results for the original poll were published. It appears that the Department of Health had commissioned Savanta to conduct the survey and wanted to create a propaganda win as the strike started. By only publishing the results of one question, they managed to create a misleading narrative that would support their own agenda.
This is not an isolated incident, but rather part of a larger trend of government departments cherry-picking data to suit their needs. When independent agencies such as the Office for National Statistics publish statistics, they are expected to present them in a comprehensive and transparent manner. However, when private polling companies like Savanta are commissioned by Whitehall, it's often a different story.
The lack of transparency is not only misleading but also undermines trust in government. It's essential that we hold those in power accountable for their actions and ensure that the truth is told, even if it goes against their interests. In a free society, citizens have the right to speak out as individuals, and it's unacceptable to regard the record of our collective views as state secrets.
The Department of Health must come clean on who took the decision to brief the Times in this way. Was it junior officials acting independently, or did ministers or senior officials take the final decision? Did anyone challenge the decision to suppress the poll results, and if so, why were they overruled?
This incident highlights a broader issue with government communications. We need to sort out the mess and establish clear guidelines for how data is presented to the public. The general rule should be that what the government knows about what we think, we should know too.
As I wrote in my previous role as chair of YouGov, there's nothing inherently wrong with keeping some research confidential, especially when it involves defence or national security issues. However, this should not come at the expense of transparency and accountability.
In an era where populism feeds on distrust of mainstream politicians, we need to stand up for truth-telling and object when the media is manipulated for political gain. I may have hoped that the Times story was right, but in reality, it's essential that we expose government spin and demand more from our leaders.
The latest strike by resident doctors has sparked widespread debate, with many questioning why the British Medical Association went ahead with the industrial action despite claiming that most doctors did not support it. A recent poll conducted by Savanta, a reputable survey research company, revealed that as many as 69% of doctors backed the strike, while only 12% were opposed. However, this finding was conveniently omitted from the Times' front-page story, instead relying on a different question that painted a very different picture.
The truth came out six days later, when the results for the original poll were published. It appears that the Department of Health had commissioned Savanta to conduct the survey and wanted to create a propaganda win as the strike started. By only publishing the results of one question, they managed to create a misleading narrative that would support their own agenda.
This is not an isolated incident, but rather part of a larger trend of government departments cherry-picking data to suit their needs. When independent agencies such as the Office for National Statistics publish statistics, they are expected to present them in a comprehensive and transparent manner. However, when private polling companies like Savanta are commissioned by Whitehall, it's often a different story.
The lack of transparency is not only misleading but also undermines trust in government. It's essential that we hold those in power accountable for their actions and ensure that the truth is told, even if it goes against their interests. In a free society, citizens have the right to speak out as individuals, and it's unacceptable to regard the record of our collective views as state secrets.
The Department of Health must come clean on who took the decision to brief the Times in this way. Was it junior officials acting independently, or did ministers or senior officials take the final decision? Did anyone challenge the decision to suppress the poll results, and if so, why were they overruled?
This incident highlights a broader issue with government communications. We need to sort out the mess and establish clear guidelines for how data is presented to the public. The general rule should be that what the government knows about what we think, we should know too.
As I wrote in my previous role as chair of YouGov, there's nothing inherently wrong with keeping some research confidential, especially when it involves defence or national security issues. However, this should not come at the expense of transparency and accountability.
In an era where populism feeds on distrust of mainstream politicians, we need to stand up for truth-telling and object when the media is manipulated for political gain. I may have hoped that the Times story was right, but in reality, it's essential that we expose government spin and demand more from our leaders.
. Like, what even is going on? They're basically trying to manipulate the narrative to fit their agenda, and then try to cover it up when the truth comes out 
. It's like they think we're not smart enough to figure out what's going on.
.
... if they're gonna manipulate the media, they should be honest about it 
instead of trying to spin a narrative like this 69% vs 12%... sounds like a whole lotta fudged numbers 
let's get real 
who took the decision to bury the original poll results? ministers or junior officials? 
needs more investigation 
come on, the times can't just ignore 69% of docs supporting a strike? that's like saying 99% of people don't own a car 
. who is this survey supposed to be for anyway? is it for the public or just some dodgy govt spin doc? 
. we need real transparency here, not some half-baked attempt at control-freakery 
Or do we use it as an opportunity to question everything and make sure we're not falling for the same tricks again?
Can't we expect more from our leaders and media outlets? I guess that's the question at hand – do we want honest reporting or are we just happy to have someone spoon-feed us the truth? 
. It's like they think we're not smart enough to figure out what's going on. Newsflash: we are! And when they try to cherry-pick data to suit their agenda, it just makes 'em look bad. I mean, if 69% of doctors support the strike, why hide that info? 
.
.
.
. Can't trust what you read in the Times these days 
. Maybe they should just stick to reporting on what's for lunch at Downing Street 
... sounds fishy to me. And now we know they cherry-picked data from Savanta and presented it in a way that benefited them 
. It's like, come on guys, we're not blind 
. We need to hold our leaders accountable for their actions 
. Can't trust anything they say anymore 
. The Times story was wrong, but now we know the truth 
The fact that 69% of doctors actually supported the strike and it got edited out of the article is a total red flag. And now they're trying to play dumb about who knew what when? 
.
. It seems like the Department of Health just wanted to control what people were thinking about the strike, so they picked and chose which results to share. That's not right at all! They basically told us what we think, rather than letting us know for ourselves.
. And now they're trying to cover their tracks by asking who made the decision... yeah good luck with that 
.
. What's wrong with having some transparency in government? It's like they think we're not smart enough to make our own decisions 