Book 3 - Robert H Thouless, Straight and Crooked Thinking

During the Scottish Independence referendum the Scots Nats became very irritated with the reporting of the BBC’s political correspondent Nick Robinson. They thought he was biased in favour of the No vote and that his reports were slanted. One event they complained about was a report of press conference when questions were raised about RBS moving its HQ and some business leaders warning of bad economic consequences in the event of independence.

The BBC Editorial Complaints Unit has recently adjudicated on this complaint and concluded that although the impression the report gave was inaccurate there were no grounds for believing the inaccuracy was intentional.

Here are two videos (admittedly put up by partisan sources so you have to be aware that the full news bulletin is not shown, only the contentious bit ). Nevertheless you can compare the report with the actual question and answer







We cannot not tell if the news bulletin in the first clip was more balanced in totality (as this is only a short excerpt) but you can this part was misleading when you compare it to the full answer in the second clip. Firstly Robinson decided, after the event, that the key question was one of trust,  and made it look as if he put a simple question which was ignored. The “He didn’t answer but he did attack the reporting” line at the end suggest Alex Salmond ducked it by attacking the messenger (always a desparate tactic). However  it was not like that. Nick Robinson didn’t ask one question but two, the first of which was answered at some length. That is the way things usually go: you ask your most important question first and it gets answered, subsequent questions can get lost, especially if they seem a little snide. The second question certainly had a bit of an edge and reminded me of when Sir Robin Day asked the the then Minister of Defence, Sir John Nott "why we should believe you, a here today, gone tomorrow politician", and John Nott stormed out of the studio. In comparison Alex Salmond was quite calm. The problem for Nick Robinson was that it was a press conference and not an interview so he couldn't follow up about the economic warnings.

Alex Salmond didn’t really address the second question (he brushed it aside saying  old news) so Nick Robinson’s report is not an outright lie but you do not have to lie to be misleading. All you have to do is impose a narrative and edit a report to fit.  It is one of the most common traits of modern media and is one of a main cause of distortions in our understanding. A commentator thus has the power to shape information and be dishonest without being literally dishonest.

However it is the BBC's  finding that although it was misleading it was done unintentional  that piqued my interest. How can it be unintentional when the whole act of writing and editing is a conscious activity? One has to recall what happened, select the wheat from the chaff and then compress it for a bulletin. At every stage you must be thinking what you are doing. But they didn’t mean he was doing his job in a trance, they meant that there was no evidence of a malicious motive or wilful propagandising. If that was the case (and it probably was) it means Nick Robinson was making no effort to step outside his habitual thought patterns and was actually working on semi-automatic pilot. He therefore didn’t notice what he was doing was a distortion. My guess is that he felt rebuffed by the way he was treated and that emotion guided his hand.

This is a small but interesting example of how we need to look carefully at what we are told and how we have to make judgements. It brought me back to a book that has been on my shelves since the mid 70s: “Straight and Crooked Thinking”, which I can thoroughly recommend. In the words of the author:

The intention of the book is primarily practical. Its main purpose is not to stimulate intellectual curiosity but to increase awareness of the process of crooked thinking and crooked communication and to provide safeguards against these. It would not have succeeded in its object if it merely led its readers to study books about logic. The test of its success is rather whether it makes it less easy for one of its readers to be persuaded by a salesman …and less easy for a politician to influence his way of voting by such irrational means as the use of emotional language or confident affirmation.  More importantly I hope it will make it less easy for the reader to hate the enemy … with that blind lack of understanding that comes from various forms of crooked thinking about him.

It was first published in 1930 but seems more relevant now than ever. Look at the current state of political/social debate, where an emotional storm can be generated in 140 characters, all politicians are well trained in the art of evading of questions whilst making sure they they repeat their pre-prepared ‘talking points’, newspapers bend all news stories to illustrate their world view,  broadcasters see interviews as a form of hostile interrogation, and an unthinking cynicism exists that distrusts anything a politician says because “they are all the same and only in it for themselves”. Public discourse is pretty sticky at the moment and expanding media and outlets for opinion causes more confusion. A guide to help you pick your way through a thicket of words is timely even if it was written over 80 years ago.Not only does it act as a refresher in the ways one should examine the way people promote their cause and carry their argument, it you guard against failings in your own thought processes. After all we all have our own prejudices and bad habits.

It is timely because the principles of logic, debate, and the sifting of evidence are fundamental and unchanging, as are the tricks that can be played. However my copy has a slightly dated feel. It was revised in 1974 and uses examples from contemporary issues for of that time for illustration (as well as examples from earlier editions). Even more interesting though is the style and the way a modern book with the same aim would be more punchy with a more broken up layout to emphasise points. here the prose is measured and clear but it is that of an academic born in 1894. I actually like his style and enjoy the calmness but there again but my age may play a part in that.

When I started to write this I didn’t know whether the book would still be in print but I am really pleased to find a new edition is available, updated by Robert Thouless’ grandson. It would be interesting to see how the prose changes with the generations and what new examples are used, especially as the background of the younger Thouless is ecology and animal behaviour rather than psychology.

P.S. I'm glad the new edition has a new cover. My one looks like it was knocked up, in a hury, when the art director was away.

Date of first publication
1930, revised edition 1974

Randomness Factor:

Reminded of the book whilst reading the news