How do you present arguments for and against something while making sure it’s plain the reader should be for? One way to do it is to present the arguments against as being, in fact, opinions held by, for example, politicians. This is a method that Dean Baker has drawn attention to on numerous occasions. For example, you write “Democrats argue that X is the case” when it is an incontrovertible and even uncontroversial fact that X is the case. Like magic, X is now no more than a party position, an opinion, an option.
October 28th’s Gazeta Wyborcza presents arguments for and against the euro in much the same way (although they also resort to using obviously rubbish arguments against). There are ten arguments in favour and seven against. In four of the seven arguments against, the authority referred to is Aleksandra Natalli-Świat, the deputy head of the parliamentary opposition. For example, the second argument against is: “Before we can enter the eurozone we have to meet many requirements, including reducing inflation, which will require higher interest rates, which in turn means slower economic growth – says deputy chief of PiS Aleksandra Natalli-Świat.” As far as I know it is a fact that Poland must reduce inflation to join the eurozone. This is done by raising interest rates, which makes money expensive, which means slower growth. Aleksandra Double-Barrelled Świat has nothing to do with it. Could they not have got an independent economist to verify or disprove this claim? Another argument against the euro is given a big wet French kiss of death by being associated with the League of Polish Families (LPR), which used to run this country and which few if any readers of GW can have even a shred of sympathy for.
Another argument against is discredited by association with the clearly exaggerated fears of another PiS figure, who said that prices in Cyprus had risen by 30% because of sellers rounding up. “Official data do not show such a rise in prices,” the newspaper says. So why mention the 30% at all? In order to be able to say “we looked at the official data” without actually telling readers what that official data said. Did the official data show a 3% rise in prices? A 29.9% rise? Who knows? Not the readers of Gazeta Wyborcza anyway.