The Market Research Standards Board (MRSB) has cleared YouGov of all the complaints made about its polling of 16-19 April during the general election – but in so doing has raised a big question about what now counts as ‘ethical’ polling. The MRSB’s ruling gives the green light to pollsters asking questions on behalf of their clients which contain false allegations about a person, even if those allegations have not previously been made in public.
The Market Research Society Code of Conduct (to which YouGov subscribes, along with other British political pollsters), states that “researchers shall be … honest” and “researchers shall protect the reputation and integrity of the profession”. However, when clearing YouGov of all complaints from other people on a wide range of matters, the MRSB also cleared it of a complaint I had lodged over the use of a polling question which falsely stated that Nick Clegg has taken money from “a criminal on the run”. This is untrue (though the party under a previous leader, Charles Kennedy, did take money from someone who subsequently was convicted of fraud and went on the run).
As a general principle, the MRSB ruled that it was ethical to ask a question about false allegations which had been publicly aired prior to the poll in order to see what the impact of those allegations was on public opinion. Many people are likely to see such actions as contrary to protecting “the reputation and integrity of the profession”, but such polling can at least be defended on the grounds that it is researching what the impact is of something already in the public domain.
However, not only did the MRSB not attempt to draw any limits around the circumstances in which such polling of false allegations is acceptable (e.g., by saying that only those affected by those allegations can poll to see their impact but not opponents whose interest may be to try to exploit the false claims), the MRSB also in practice further decided that the false allegations need not previously have been made in public at all.
That is because the MRSB ruled YouGov’s polling acceptable on the basis that, “All the statements has [sic] appeared in the media prior to the project. (The “criminal on the run” claim had been made by Mr Cameron during the first leaders’ debate on 15 April 2010)”.
Yet the transcript of the first debate shows that David Cameron’s statement in the first debate was in fact about the Liberal Democrats taking money from a criminal – a reference to the donation the party received from Michael Brown. That donation was in fact received when Charles Kennedy was party leader and at a time when Nick Clegg was not only not party leader but also not in any other post, such as treasurer or cheif fundraiser, which could count as having ‘received’ the money.
On this discrepancy being queried, the Market Research Society has stuck to its ruling, insisting that the failure of the debate transcript to reflect the wording of the polling question is no reason to rethink its ruling. In other words, it is ethical in its eyes to take a past fact about a political party, rewrite it into a false statement about the party’s current leader, and then put that statement in a public opinion poll – and it is still ethical to do so even if no evidence is presented of the rewritten false claim having been made in public by anyone.
The MRS may view that as ethical, and YouGov were cleared of all complaints, but that is the sort of verdict which should cause leading figures in the industry to scrabble to rewrite their rules.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
6 Comments
The polling industry really needs to get its act together. I hope other polling companies will publicly state that they will voluntarily hold themselves to a higher standard. There is no excuse for using polls to try out various ungrounded allegations to see which would have the most impact. I can see a case for polling to ask about allegations already reported in the press (even if they are disputed), but not for polling companies to help fabricate new ones.
Yet again the toothlessness of polling regulation is evident. Newspapers continue to employ pollsters like BPIX that are totally untransparent and have not released even one dataset to the public in six years of polling!
I think it’s time to e-mail to complain about this ruling… http://www.mrs.org.uk/standards/people.htm
I’m not sure the MRS is wrong here Mark. The main issue facing the pollster in these circumstances is whether repeating a false and defamatory allegation during a phone, written or online survey exposes them to legal risk. That is the same risk as any other publisher.
If the allegation is untrue but not defamatory, or at least so trite that it is not worth a lawsuit, then it would fall into the same category of risks to reputation as a large number of advertising claims, which market research companies do test, often in ignorance the claimed benefits are false. The responsibility for then disseminating a false claim falls on the client and advertiser, regulated by the ASA, not the MRS.
In that regard the responsibility for regulating false claims in elections is surely the job of the Electoral Commission and/or other bodies governing the conduct of political communications. The polling company does not decide whether or not to use a false claim (and may not know it is false), it only advises the client on the impact.
I’m also not sure it would be a good thing if this changed. If the MRS rules stopped the investigation of false claims. It would for example make it impossible to investigate what impact false claims had on an election result. A poll for example to investigate what impact Oldham East Labour leaflets had on marginal voters, or paedophile-smears in Waltham Forest. I note you think that should be an exemption, but what about third parties investigating false claims without the victim’s consent, surely that would stop some proper investigative journalism? What about where the victim is a group such as those on the receiving end of generalised race-hate?
Too restrictive convenants would ultimately create a market space for entirely unregulated firms. Better surely that the responsibility for the veracity of claims made in communciations and adverstising remain with the communicators and advertisers at the point of contact, not spread awkwardly around the supply chain causing confusion and cost?
So, is it also “ethical” for a political canvasser to insinuate, but not actually allege, a false statement about an opponent under the guise of “conducting a survey”
e.g.
“in the coming election, which candidate are you most likely to support”
….
“Thank you, would you still support x if I were to tell you that he was a wife beating drunkard”
I remember the Labour party in southwark bragging about commissioning push polling about Simon H. Annoying and insulting to voters and all part of the rough and tumble of politics but none the less pretty unimpressive for the Market Research Standards Board to endorse it.
Here comes push polling.
@andy mayer did you even read the article before posting? Mark is very specific that he (quite rightly) objects to the fact previously unreported and therefore non public allegations of wrong doing have been endorsed as fine to include in polling by this ruling.
So as nick points out above this opens the door for completely false statement polling questions