PDA

View Full Version : EU to set up euro-election internet 'troll patrol' to tackle Eurosceptic surge



-:Undertaker:-
03-02-2013, 08:33 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9845442/EU-to-set-up-euro-election-troll-patrol-to-tackle-Eurosceptic-surge.html

EU to set up euro-election 'troll patrol' to tackle Eurosceptic surge

The European Parliament is to spend almost £2 million on press monitoring and trawling Eurosceptic debates on the internet for "trolls" with whom to debate in the run-up and during euro-elections next year amid fears that hostility to the EU is growing.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02259/eu_2259316b.jpg
The European Parliament fears that hostility to the EU is growing


The Daily Telegraph has seen confidential spending proposals and internal documents planning an unprecedented propaganda blitz ahead of and during European elections in June 2014.

Key to a new strategy will be "public opinion monitoring tools" to "identify at an early stage whether debates of political nature among followers in social media and blogs have the potential to attract media and citizens' interest".

Spending on "qualitative media analysis" is to be increased by £1.7 million and while most of the money is to be found in existing budgets an additional £787,000 will be need to be raised next year despite calls for EU spending to reflect national austerity.

"Particular attention needs to be paid to the countries that have experienced a surge in Euroscepticism," said a confidential document agreed last year.

"Parliament's institutional communicators must have the ability to monitor public conversation and sentiment on the ground and in real time, to understand 'trending topics' and have the capacity to react quickly, in a targeted and relevant manner, to join in and influence the conversation, for example, by providing facts and figures to deconstructing myths."

Training for parliament officials begins later this month.

Paul Nuttall, UKIP's deputy leader, has attacked the proposals, which he said, violate the neutrality of the EU civil service by turning officials into a "troll patrol", stalking the internet to make unwanted and provocative political contributions in social media debates.

"Spending over a million pounds for EU public servants to become Twitter trolls in office hours is wasteful and truly ridiculous," he said.

"It strikes me as bizarre that the EU administration is playing such an explicitly political role with a brief to target Eurosceptics - that's code for parties like Ukip, and this is hardly neutral."

A confidential document discussed by officials last week appears to acknowledge problems by admitting that "there are fine lines separating institutional and political communication".

Parliament officials declined to comment on the confidential documents and ongoing private discussions within the EU assmbly's administration.

A confidential document entitled "political guidelines for the institutional information and communication campaign" was agreed by the parliament's administrative "bureau" last July.

The text highlights a "sharp contrast" between "growing perception of endangered welfare, rising insecurity and financial instability" and EU promises to guarantee "freedom, security and social justice with a prosperous internal market".

"The current economic and financial crisis together with high rates of unemployment, particularly among young people, is resulting in diminished trust in European institutions by citizens... it is evident that the EU's image is suffering," the document said.

"In order to reverse the perception that 'Europe is the problem', we need to communicate that the answer to existing challenges... is 'more Europe' not 'less Europe'."

Parliament officials are especially worried that new powers for MEPs under the Lisbon Treaty have not been reflected in growing popularity, as voting turnout for the parliament has declined successively since the first direct elections 34 years ago.

"The increase in power has met with increased influence, responsibility and transparency which should be reflected by enhanced visibility, credibility and a better reputation," said the document.

"Beyond the indisputable success story of European integration, the public's image of the EU and that of the parliament is rather lacking, as represented by the steadily declining election polling figures since 1979."

This year MEPs are to increase spending on promoting themselves ahead of European elections next year even as EU countries face an unprecedented period of fiscal austerity.

Spending includes a £9.4 million instalment for a controversial new museum of Europe, an £82 million "House of European History" opening in 2015 to celebrate the EU's "historical memory" and to "promote awareness of European identity".

Under the spending plans, cash for "seminars, symposia and cultural activities" will swell by 85 per cent, £2.5 million. Expenditure on "audio-visual information" will rise by 36 per cent, or £4.3 million.

There will be 15 per cent increase in funding for the EU's political parties, such as the European People's Party (EPP), and spending on the parliament's hi-tech visitor, centre the "parlamentarium", will increase by nine per cent.

Taking money from us in order to use it to lie to us via propaganda. But the desperation that they've now sunk to the level of paying people to troll forums and debate forums for them is telling, and as Nigel Farage said (https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage) -


Nigel Farage MEP
Only in a third world banana republic would parliamentary officials monitor people in this manner.

This move by the EU would be akin to the Conservative Party using civil service funds to fund Tory election propaganda. It's out of order.

But hey, they have their work cut out.

Thoughts?

Inseriousity.
03-02-2013, 09:15 PM
I'd save them the money and just say www.habboxforum.com (http://www.habboxforum.com)

The Don
03-02-2013, 09:18 PM
Just the Telegraph trying to stir in my opinion. The only source of evidence is a 'confidential document', I have no doubt that they may be increasing spending but I believe this is mainly sensationalist journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism).

-:Undertaker:-
03-02-2013, 09:26 PM
Just the Telegraph trying to stir in my opinion. The only source of evidence is a 'confidential document', I have no doubt that they may be increasing spending but I believe this is mainly sensationalist journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism).

RT has also followed from the Telegraph and picked up on it, http://rt.com/news/eu-trolls-election-monitoring-348/

Just because it isn't from the oh-so-perfect BBC (which recieves EU & state funds itself) doesn't mean it's not valid, you can find previous expensive EU propaganda campaigns that have taken place before on YouTube itself along with pointing to the hundreds of thousands the EU Commission poured into the Irish referendum campaign (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6239933/EU-intervention-in-Irish-referendum-unlawful.html). A campaign, which, if you remember, had to be re-ran twice because the EU didn't like the result.

Nice try, so whats the response now to this piece of investigative journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism)?

http://euobserver.com/news/28505


A former speech-writer for Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt has in a report accused the EU of creating an illegitimate "propaganda machine."

Maria Rankka, who worked for Mr Bildt in 1999, currently runs the Swedish pro-free markets think-tank Timbro, which in a paper out this week says that Brussels is overstepping its mandate of facilitating cross-border co-operation.

"The EU, at the tax-payers' expense, actively advocates more European integration and prevents free debate on the future of Europe, extending the limits of what we normally regard as communication," the study says.

"Sweden, during its presidency of the EU in the autumn of 2009, should highlight the issue and take the first step in reversing this trend."

Timbro notes that the European Commission each year allocates funds far in excess of its official €213 million communications budget to projects ranging from EU-sponsored radio stations and websites, such as Euranet and EUtube.

It points out that popular broadcaster Euronews benefits from EU assistance to the tune of €10.8 million a year, raising questions over its objectivity.

The Brussels and Maastricht-based European Journalism Centre, which trains future reporters, took a €1 million grant in 2008.

...continues via link.

A quick search (http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=EU+propaganda+funding&oq=EU+propaganda+funding&gs_l=hp.3..33i21.838.3771.0.3908.21.17.0.4.4.2.139 4.3281.3j9j2j7-1.15.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.hp.MdsQbVPnStw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41867550,d.d2k&fp=cb9df04a10e3c0b7&biw=1280&bih=642) of EU campaign funding would have shown you this is what the EU does, but instead it seems you'd rather be lazy and just dismiss the story because you won't believe it until its posted on the BBC Politics section. There's a world of news outside the BBC, believe it or not.

dbgtz
03-02-2013, 10:30 PM
RT has also followed from the Telegraph and picked up on it, http://rt.com/news/eu-trolls-election-monitoring-348/

Just because it isn't from the oh-so-perfect BBC (which recieves EU & state funds itself) doesn't mean it's not valid, you can find previous expensive EU propaganda campaigns that have taken place before on YouTube itself along with pointing to the hundreds of thousands the EU Commission poured into the Irish referendum campaign (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6239933/EU-intervention-in-Irish-referendum-unlawful.html). A campaign, which, if you remember, had to be re-ran twice because the EU didn't like the result.

Nice try, so whats the response now to this piece of investigative journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism)?

http://euobserver.com/news/28505


A quick search (http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=EU+propaganda+funding&oq=EU+propaganda+funding&gs_l=hp.3..33i21.838.3771.0.3908.21.17.0.4.4.2.139 4.3281.3j9j2j7-1.15.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.hp.MdsQbVPnStw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41867550,d.d2k&fp=cb9df04a10e3c0b7&biw=1280&bih=642) of EU campaign funding would have shown you this is what the EU does, but instead it seems you'd rather be lazy and just dismiss the story because you won't believe it until its posted on the BBC Politics section. There's a world of news outside the BBC, believe it or not.

He didn't dismiss it because it wasn't the BBC, he dismissed it because the source they used is hardly solid. Stop putting words in peoples mouths.

GommeInc
03-02-2013, 10:44 PM
It would be nice to see this document rather than go by broken up quotations.

Besides, it's hardly surprising an institute such as the EU would want to boost exposure ahead of important votes. You'd have to be a fool to believe the information when reality paints a truly different picture.

The Don
03-02-2013, 10:44 PM
He didn't dismiss it because it wasn't the BBC, he dismissed it because the source they used is hardly solid. Stop putting words in peoples mouths.

Well said, Short and to the point. You can spam me with all the paragraphs you want Dan, but the fact remains that this entire article is built around this mysterious confidential source. I never mentioned the BBC so I'm not really sure why you've brought that up if I'm honest.

-:Undertaker:-
03-02-2013, 10:45 PM
He didn't dismiss it because it wasn't the BBC, he dismissed it because the source they used is hardly solid. Stop putting words in peoples mouths.

Had this been a BBC piece I wouldn't have had the same response.

He's right to question it especially if it were a tabloid, but he ought to actually look around for past evidence beforehand and then make an opinion rather than ignorantly dismissing it by saying "oh it's just a Telegraph hit piece" - evidence for this is? none. Evidence that this story is in line with what the EU is generally like when it comes to propaganda funding? i've provided it. It's called investigative journalism.

If somebody posts an article by the BBC speculating on say President Assad and his resignation, do you ever see me or anybody posting "OMGZ WELL ITS ONLY SPECULATION, WHERES DA PROOF" - no, because with these kinds of sources (broadsheets and media outlets such as RT & the BBC) they generally do their homework and it usually turns out to be true. It would have been very easy to simply post "If the confidential documents are indeed true, I think X and Y" - thats what I do with stories like that, it's called manners. Like GommeInc; has just demonstrated.

With these sorts of stories, I always look at past goings-on before posting - because it then usually indicates it's true. That's why I don't post a lot of the tabloid stories on this subject and other subjects, as they're often over-exaggerated or sketchy to say the least.


Well said, Short and to the point. You can spam me with all the paragraphs you want Dan, but the fact remains that this entire article is built around this mysterious confidential source. I never mentioned the BBC so I'm not really sure why you've brought that up if I'm honest.

Assuming it is true and in line with past EU propaganda spending, whats your opinion on it? you certainly have a lot to say, so i'm interested.

The Don
03-02-2013, 10:55 PM
Had this been a BBC piece I wouldn't have had the same response.

He's right to question it especially if it were a tabloid, but he ought to actually look around for past evidence beforehand and then make an opinion rather than ignorantly dismissing it by saying "oh it's just a Telegraph hit piece" - evidence for this is? none. Evidence that this story is in line with what the EU is generally like when it comes to propaganda funding? i've provided it.

If somebody posts an article by the BBC speculating on say President Assad and his resignation, do you ever see me or anybody posting "OMGZ WELL ITS ONLY SPECULATION, WHERES DA PROOF" - no, because with these kinds of sources (broadsheets and media outlets such as RT & the BBC) they generally do their homework and it usually turns out to be true. It would have been very easy to simply post "If the confidential documents are indeed true, I think X and Y".

Past evidence for what? I don't doubt that there are some seedy things taking place in Brussels but they're irrelevant to this actual thread and don't make this article any less than the mere sensationalist propaganda that it is. Why would I research past cases about the eu interfering in the Ireland referendum when the original post was about the eu setting up some sort of press regulation?

-:Undertaker:-
03-02-2013, 11:03 PM
Past evidence for what? I don't doubt that there are some seedy things taking place in Brussels but they're irrelevant to this actual thread and don't make this article any less than the mere sensationalist propaganda that it is.

How is this sensationalist? it's hardly the most exciting topic in the news. You are utterly utterly bizzare.


Why would I research past cases about the eu interfering in the Ireland referendum when the original post was about the eu setting up some sort of press regulation?

Because when you look into any given area of a subject, you look at past cases which help determine the context. It's like when I see poor thought out stories on the EU in the Mail or Express concerning the CAP, i'll research up other cases and look at contextual analysis on the blogging sphere where the truth is seperated from fiction. To simply take this case as 100% true or 100% false without doing any research on EU funding beforehand, thats sensationalist - and it's not something i'm guilty of *look at you*.

FlyingJesus
03-02-2013, 11:54 PM
I don't really care about this issue but sensationalist doesn't mean exciting

The Don
04-02-2013, 12:17 PM
How is this sensationalist? it's hardly the most exciting topic in the news. You are utterly utterly bizzare.



Because when you look into any given area of a subject, you look at past cases which help determine the context. It's like when I see poor thought out stories on the EU in the Mail or Express concerning the CAP, i'll research up other cases and look at contextual analysis on the blogging sphere where the truth is seperated from fiction. To simply take this case as 100% true or 100% false without doing any research on EU funding beforehand, thats sensationalist - and it's not something i'm guilty of *look at you*.

I don't think you understand what sensationalist means.

I'm not looking to debate with you otherwise I'd be in the debates section, not current affairs. I was pointing out that the article you've based this thread around is highly misleading and shouldn't be taken as fact. I only opened the thread because I hovered over it with my mouse and it mentioned press regulation which interests me, looking up past cases which are completely unrelated to press regulation is completely unnecessary and doesn't alter the contents of the article or the fact that it's built around a hidden source. Looking at the EU's involvement in the Irish referendum doesn't change the fact that this article is untrustworthy and most likely Anti-EU propaganda.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!