Am I surprised?
Not really.
It seemed almost inevitable to me having watched the
presentation to the department of works and pensions for incapacity benefit
that someone would have to take a stand. I found the attitude of the presenters
(those presenting the figures) callous and woefully lacking in information
about the group of people they were dealing with. They were far too focussed on
delivering the targets and less interested in whether the decisions they were
making were reasonable. It angered me a great deal.
I then went and read some of the comments left on the
Guardian and I am shocked again, this time at the vehemence with which people
are commenting about either the stupidity of this or the prejudice of the
government/ ATOS. The amount of resentment and anger over welfare reform is
bringing out the very worst on all sides. However I found it interesting that
some people at least seem to think that the figures quoted in this report are
out of date.
And given that he was on the scrutiny panel I find it
unlikely that he was not privy to the current figures and although he undoubtly
has an investment in painting the bleakest picture ever of the process it seems
unlikely to me that he has doctored the figures. Used them to his advantage, yes, but doctored then no.
However it seems that this country has a dim view of the government’s ability to tell the truth so why would they believe the head of a charity?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/politicians-lie-all-the-time-says-poll-7536473.html
Politicians 'lie all the time', says
poll
Nearly
two-thirds of voters (62 per cent) believe politicians lie "all the time
and you can't believe a word they say", a survey suggests today
And the fact is we all do distrust the government of over
some things so we can see how this might be true, and that’s the beauty of
statistics they all appear to be possible.
The fact is people misquote things all the time and
particularly in the press. The figures are misleading and used to sway your
feelings, just as I have this one. If you’ll check this link (http://fullfact.org/blog/trust_politicians_politics_government_YouGov-3375
)you will find an explanation as to why this isn’t the whole picture.
The problem is of course that the press has invested a great
deal of effort into painting a vary bad picture of the people claiming benefit
and hitting back in some form really is all that can be done now. Providing inaccurate
or out of date figures to them is not the way to convince people you have a
point, however when figures are quoted differently for seemingly the same data
set it’s difficult know who really has the correct picture.
So who is telling the truth? Who is the most up to date?
Well in this instance the only thing to do is ask, however
most of us don’t have the time nor the inclination to do this for ourselves
however www.fullfact.org a non profit
company can do it for you, all you have to do is send in your suggestions (however
it should be noted that they are very busy right now)
They have been championing correct statistics in the press
for some time and have fact checked many of the stories relating to benefit
fraud. Has
reporting of incapacity benefits improved? http://fullfact.org/blog/reporting_incapacity_benefit_ESA_improvement-5504
They conclude
While the language used by the press has itself been
criticised for being "deeply
offensive", we are pleased that reporting is getting closer to
the facts and figures
Which is a good step forward, however the use of derisive
language is still a major barrier in the war against stigma; something the
government might want to think.
Unfortunately I am also unimpressed with the anti-stigma
campaign and not because I feel that the stigma should be allowed to remain, I
see it as a noble goal however changing peoples attitudes is a difficult and
complex thing.
I just feel that in having to have a campaign that seems
largely to be done via no interactive media (ie adverts on TV, billboards and
such) it is not likely to change peoples views very much. I feel putting people
in an open forum where they can express their views to each other and find out firsthand
what mentally ill people are like would be much more useful.
And although having looked at the campaign in more detail I
can see that this is largely what the
campaign is trying to achieve through its events I was unaware of them until a few minutes ago when I went and looked for
them, which suggests that they have not
reached enough people.
I hope I am wrong.
In this article, however, there doesn’t seem to be any way
of knowing how effective the campaign will be.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/339/ Evaluation of
a brief anti-stigma campaign in Cambridge: do short-term campaigns work? They report
The data suggest that it may be easier to influence
outcomes pertaining to knowledge in the short term rather than aiming to
influence attitudes or behaviour. Although there may be more extensive
barriers to shifting attitude or behavioural outcomes, changing knowledge
around what people can do is an important outcome in itself. Much has been
written as to whether improved knowledge is a useful outcome and whether public
education itself is sufficient or even useful [11].
Although it is possible that some types of knowledge, such as being able to
identify certain psychiatric diagnoses, may not reduce stigma or discrimination
[12],
there is evidence that knowledge about sources of help, or ways of helping
others with mental health problems, may positively influence stigma and
discrimination..
Which falls into line with my own fears that attitudes and
or behaviour are not necessarily changed by a campaign, participant’s knowledge,
however, does seem to have been influenced and that is a good thing in my book.
It suggests to me that a more sustained campaign may have an effect although I
feel there is no way of knowing if it will.
Should we not do it then?
No quite the opposite for I feel it is in getting the
message out there and people becoming better informed that will allow their attitudes
to change. It will just take a long time to achieve.
No comments:
Post a Comment