Tuesday, March 15, 2011

A thing happened today. A while ago, I signed a petition or something about a particular advert which essentially amounted to a lie and a fairly disturbing bit of fear-mongering, by the 'No to AV' Campaign. I'm someone who will vote Yes in May. If the country rejects AV in May, fine. But it would be nice to know it happened because of reasoned choices.

Anyway, at the time, I listed my profession as 'Academic'. I don't really ever know what to put. I'm a Research Fellow, officially, but the word 'Fellow' always sounds ridiculous when I go to say it and I balk, often simply calling myself a Research Fff. Something vague like 'I'm in research' or 'I do research' sometimes works in conversation, but in form-filling might be taken as a learning disability. (Name: My name is Craig. Age: My age is 27. Address: I live in a flat with a blue door. I keep all my secret things there. Ssshhh.). Basically, it's all linked to a guilt that I don't do a proper job with stone and grime and lathes, and no matter how much I want to call myself a 'fact welder' or a 'hypothesis foreman', there's no escaping this. 'Academic' sounds flouncy and pretentious, but I went with it on this occassion.

Which brings us to today, when I received an email asking whether, as an academic, I would add my name to a open letter type thing, urging people to vote Yes. This troubled me. Yes, I'm kind of an academic broadly, but I'm an economist more specifically. I have absolutely no academic credentials which should give me a voice of authority here. It would be like me signing a letter, as an academic, in support of stem cell research or tougher regulation on carbon emissions or the legal case for war. In all those cases, I have an opinion which I could argue for. But it's really just me (Craig, 27, yachtsman).

But tell me this, kind reader: am I being overly precious? Or is this kind of thing just as manipulative as a bad advert?

4 comments:

Unknown said...

You forgot "Ostrich".

Tom Greeves said...

I think the ad is stupid, and even rather offensive.

But how is it a lie? Surely it isn't a LIE to say that the money spent on the AV referendum / implementing AV would be better spent on cardiac care ... it's a matter of opinion.

Craig said...

The ad specifies the cost of voting for AV is £250 million. This estimate is over 50% linked to the cost of vote counting machines that no-one has seriously proposed bringing in.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/update-yes-to-av-at-what-cost/5817

Tom Greeves said...

Oh sorry, I thought you simply meant that it was a lie that the money could be spent on cardiac care.

Yep - the £250 million figure is preposterous.

I've written about AV here:

http://bigtommygspeaks.blogspot.com/2011/02/can-we-clear-something-up-please.html