Written By: - Date published: 11:44 am, June 27th, 2008 - 59 comments
Categories: john key, national, spin -
Tags: hollow men, misdirection
There’s a technique that sits at the heart of conjuring tricks called misdirection the act of drawing attention away from the trick itself. You all know how it works: the conjurer will flourish a brightly coloured handkerchief in one hand, while the trick is quietly taking place unnoticed in the other.
The same thing happens in spin when a politician wishes to draw attention away from an issue, and National are particularly adept at it. Yesterday’s example of producing a decontextualised quote about the treaty from Cullen in order to draw attention away from Key’s comments was a classic example of misdirection in action, and was very similar to when Key was caught out claiming the Iraq war was over and then tried to claim Labour had said similar things.
But the mother of all misdirections, the one which is probably framed and hanging on Crosby Textor’s office wall of fame, is the ‘stolen emails’ misdirection. Remember that?
Rather than discuss the content of the emails that featured in the Hollow Men, National’s response was to make a huge fuss over the fact that they were ‘stolen’ and make that the story instead. The fact that there has been no evidence produced to prove this and the police believe it was an inside job is irrelevant now because like all of National’s spin their misdirection sits within a greater framework of hit and run PR and they are confident (with considerable reason) that the memory hole will take care of the story if they can get just past it in the short term.
So just remember, when National are making a big song and dance about something it probably pays to watch their other hand.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
funny. pots and kettles and all that.
Is that the best you can do? It’s not even good misdirection.
he he IrishBill. It just made me laugh that’s all. All the politicians do it. Not quite sure why anyone would spend time worrying about it.
Hey boys,
Been a while since I last posted but…….
Gotta agree that Labour are just as adept, if not more, at this, Irish.
vto provides yet another example of misdirection, as he does every time the Nats are exposed.
brownie, vto. you’re welcome to substantiate your arguments with examples.
great image, Irish.
For the love of God IS THAT IT!?! I can’t believe you think your readers are so thick that they need this pointing out, Bill.
Let’s not be misdirected from the signs that National’s policies would give most voters the screaming shits if they found about them.
SP,
Mallard vs Erin Leigh.
To take the gloss off a terrible situation, Big Trev levels a personal attack then apologises later (sort of). Great misdirection.
QED
Stating the claim that the EFB would be rushed into Law was ‘hearsay’ so that the court case over whether it contravened the BoRA would not be heard in good time, then ramming it through on fast-track anyway, thus rendering any discussion about a Law’s relevence to the BoRA redundant.
Monkey-boy, Given the uninformed and frankly stupid comments some from the right make here I though I should lay it out nice and simple.
Brownie, on the matter of Labour’s misdirection you are welcome to give me three examples if you can but I suspect it will be a bit hard as Labour don’t have a lot of stuff they need to draw attention from. If anything they have a lot of policy they need to draw attention to.
As emails are the intellectual property of the individual writing them, or the company/organisation/group they are writing on behalf of, by definition they MUST have been stolen.
Whether or not it was an inside job is irrelevant. Would it not be stealing if someone working at The Warehouse nicked off with the money in the till? That counts as ‘inside job’ too.
…
For other misdirection, look no further than the PM’s occasional reference to changing the flag, or NZ becoming a republic.
Ib,
I have just sent a email to Iprent but thought you may know. Are you having any trouble with the Captcha? It won’t allow me to put it in?
[lprent: Which browser and what version? I thought I'd got them all apart from some really obscure browsers like the KDE one. I'll check e-mail.]
Brownie, I’m not having any trouble but I’m using the new firefox. I’m sure Lynn will get it sorted.
Claiming the EFA was ‘To stop people like the Exclusive Brethren and John Key from rorting the electoral process.” When it was really to spike the opposition’s guns because Labour were bankrupt after paying back the $800,000 dollars they ‘misappropriated’ during the election, despite promising the Electoral Commission that they wouldn’t.
That’s two for the price of one.
captch works – you have to type out your comment at the bottom, scroll to the top of the page put in the capcha code then scroll down and submit.
[lprent: Lee: damn - which browser and version?]
Bill that’s three examples. You owe me a drink. Make it a bottle of Jamiesons and we are quits.
Thanks MB and IB.
Captcha: Pulled dickson. Are they talking about Michael Fay?
MB, each of the points you have made is an argument central to the main point. Misdirection is where something tangential is brought into the mix to distract attention to the main point. To claim the rationale for the EFA is a misdirection from the EFA is like claiming a conjurer should attach the handkerchief to the hand doing the trick.
You asked earlier in the thread if I though my readers were so thick as to need misdirection explained? Apparently at least one of them is.
Politicians are allowed to get away with far too much misdirection, by the media – who are too lax to keep their eye on the topic and will happily write a “he said / she said” piece instead – and by the Speaker.
It pre-dates, however, most of the present National Party leadership. I was certainly using it in the 1990s. If politicians and poliical operatives are allowed to get away with it, of course they will.
Well done Irish Bill for highlighting the technique. I only hope it’s incresingly recognised for what it is and the politcian practicing it held to account properly.
Start, perhaps, by suggesting to Michael Cullen that instead of making every third or four answer to a Parliamentary question a coruscating personal or political insult, he provides a straight answer.
The was a brilliant summary of these techniques I was sent some time ago from another blog with examples from politicians over the last couple of decades – it is a very common technique
[lprent: Probably this one. A politician's guide to ducking awkward questions by Stephen Price at the Media Law Journal]
Lynn – I’m IE6 and same happens. Been like this for a while, but not a real problem: monkey boy and brownie – if you ‘refresh’ the captcha challenge the box will appear where it should, and not at the top of the comments.
Phil, right or wrong, all it did was to divert from the main issue, thus it was still misdirection. The source is peripheral to the content.
Bill I thought you were confused as you asked for three examples. There is no need to get al huffy just because I could provide them without breaking a sweat.
Regarding ‘To claim the rationale for the EFA is a misdirection from the EFA is like claiming a conjurer should attach the handkerchief to the hand doing the trick.’
… it is evident that you for one, have actually been fooled by the misdirection, so in a way, you have provided us with an excellent working example.
So in short, I guess ironically in this case it is perhaps the author himself who is so thick that he needs misdirection pointing out to him.
ps I have some beads, blankets and mirrors at home, do you want to swap them for your house?
And you owe me a Jamiesons.
Easy IB. No need for the insults
Thanks MP
Brownie
If you can’t read the captcha, there is a little refresh button (circular arrows like IE7), refresh until you get a readable one.
IB are you saying that policians use spin to promote their side and discredit the opposition? Damn their eyes
And Easy MB,
Lets keep it civil, eh boys. It’s actually a good argument. Lets not get nasty on other just cause we disagree. That is not the definition of “robust debate” after all.
And the “refresh technique or the scroll to the top style Doesn’t always work. Strange.
monkey-boy, your arrogance astounds. Where does this Jamieson’s thing come from anyway?
I’m game for one:
“Stating the claim that the EFB would be rushed into Law was ‘hearsay’ so that the court case over whether it contravened the BoRA would not be heard in good time, then ramming it through on fast-track anyway, thus rendering any discussion about a Law’s relevence to the BoRA redundant.”
I’m not going to debate the facts of this point, I’m going to question whether it was misdirection. In fact, for simplicity, I’ll pretend it’s all true. OK?
Saying something wouldn’t be ‘rushed into law’, and then doing just that, is not misdirection. It is not an example where they have said something tangential to draw attention from the main point. If the main point was the court case about the BoRA, then they simply superceded the process by making the court case irrelevant.
This is not misdirection, nor is it remotely close to the concept in the slightest. ‘Fraid to say it, monkey boy, but I see IB’s comment as pretty onto it. If a little harsh. But hell, to start flaming and calling ‘points’ when you’re totally wrong is pretty poor behaviour.
Well, …. he started it…
Oh for goodness sake Matthew, so to plan to rush it through in the first place, then claim that nothing is further from your mind then having gained an advantage from the original lie, and go back on what you said (as you planned) isn’t misdirection?
That’s a Tui.
Well, …. he started it…
Oh for goodness sake Matthew, so to plan to rush it through in the first place, then claim that nothing is further from your mind then having gained an advantage from the original lie, and go back on what you said (as you planned) isn’t misdirection?
That’s a Tui you owe me.
oooh the penny’s just dropped.
you don’t want to debate ‘misdirection’ because (interestingly) you use misdirection to deflect from the points by referring to it as ‘flaming’. You just want to talk about what a tosser John Key is, (again…)
Ok,
I got it now.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The floor is yours.
How did they gain advantage from the original lie (still pretending that everything you say is true)?
How is that analogous to saying something to divert attention away from the main issue?
And just to put this in a separate post, so you don’t repeat your earlier mistake (and further demonstrate you don’t know what misdirection is), if I was misdirecting you I’d not have responded to your substantiative points, I’d have simply called you up on the ‘flaming’.
That’s what misdirection is.
You have again demonstrated, quite beautifully, your lack of understanding.
Nice attempt at misdirection with the John Key comment, but since you don’t know what misdirecting is, it’s not surprising it won’t work.
You see, misdirection has to be tangentially relevant to the original topic – and talking about Key’s qualities is not in any way relevant here.
because the High Court Judge was obliged to accept the ‘hearsay’ claim, thus did not hear the case with urgency. In the meantime, they rammed the Bill into Law. So by the time the court case came up, it was irrelevant because once a law is passed it cannot be challenged as being in contravention of the BoRA…
So the main issue was whether the case that the EFA contravened the BoRA should be heard with urgency because the law was going to be rushed in….
The misdirection was that it was ‘hearsay’ to claim this.
The original lie was that they intended to rush it through all the tiem…
Classic misdirection using a legal definition to block your opponent in order to fulfil your own end-game.
“Nice attempt at misdirection with the John Key comment, but since you don’t know what misdirecting is, it’s not surprising it won’t work.”
So did I do it on purpose or not?
What did I say about John Key that wasn’t tangentially relevant, I thought the whole of the blog was dedicated to what a tosser he is?
How was that ‘flaming’ as you put it?
Nahhhh only joking!
Relax Matthew, I’m just f**n with you!
It’s my breathtaking arrogance rearing its ugly head again…