No Leading Questions Here
From the 07/11/07 NBC-WSJ Poll:
Notice that? ...which the United States is not prepared to carry out militarily. This is their opinion, stated as fact, to guide those polled to a prescribed response. I'd consider such poll tampering unethical. What do you think?
Recently the United States Senate passed a resolution that declared that the Iranian government's most elite military unit is a terrorist organization. Which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view about this? Statement A: Passing this resolution was a GOOD thing, because it sends a strong message to the Iranian government that the U.S. has put it on notice and will see that it pays an economic and diplomatic price for its actions.
Statement B: Passing this resolution was a BAD thing, because it moves the United States closer to a potential conflict with Iran, which the United States is not prepared to carry out militarily.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:43 AM
Comments
1
Leading question... It wouldn't be allowed in court. It certainly makes choosing an answer difficult.
Yes, I would agree that it is unethical.
And I would agree with that even if it were true. Why is it necessary to add to the question?
Yes, I would agree that it is unethical.
And I would agree with that even if it were true. Why is it necessary to add to the question?
Posted by: Suzi at November 15, 2007 10:21 AM (yCz8V)
2
Statement A: This is a fair poll because I am a complete idiot.
Statement B: This is not a fair poll because NBC-WSJ are lying sacks of poop which want their ideas validated by bogus polls.
Statement B: This is not a fair poll because NBC-WSJ are lying sacks of poop which want their ideas validated by bogus polls.
Posted by: David at November 15, 2007 11:14 AM (cPLO6)
3
At least the question was made public. I wonder how many polls with dishonest questions are published and the questions are never released. Another thing to consider is that even though the questions may be included in the fine print of polls most readers probably do not read them. This probably makes it easy for the MSM to skew their polling.
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at November 15, 2007 11:41 AM (gkobM)
4
At least incompetent. I mean shamefully incompetent. So incompetent that the director of the poll should probably be put on notice for his or her job, unless this is a second incident or, upon further investigation, it proves to reflect a pattern. Continuing to present these polls, once having been made aware of their flawed construction, might possibly be considered unethical, but could probably also be ascribed more easily to poor training or education, or even to mental incapacity, rather than to ethical failings.
On some days I tend to think that Vincent Bugliosi (the L.A. District Attorney who prosecuted the Manson conspirators) was right when he said that, in analyzing public and private behavior, you have to keep in mind that 90% of people (I think that was his estimate) are incompetent.
Forgive them, CY, for they know not what they do.
On some days I tend to think that Vincent Bugliosi (the L.A. District Attorney who prosecuted the Manson conspirators) was right when he said that, in analyzing public and private behavior, you have to keep in mind that 90% of people (I think that was his estimate) are incompetent.
Forgive them, CY, for they know not what they do.
Posted by: CK MacLeod at November 15, 2007 11:52 AM (dvksz)
5
I twice received from the Democratic National Committee (Copperheads Uber Alles) a list of survey questions on political matters. The question on Iraq was definitely a loaded one. All the choices had to do with withdrawal: 3 months from now,6 months from now, 1 year from now, etc.
The survey also included a request for donations.
I don't know why they sent it to me, because the last time I voted for a Democratic Party nominee for President was 1976.
The survey also included a request for donations.
I don't know why they sent it to me, because the last time I voted for a Democratic Party nominee for President was 1976.
Posted by: XDem at November 15, 2007 11:53 AM (La333)
6
TO be clear: I meant that the director should be put on notice if this is a first incident and not reflective of a pattern - otherwise fired.
Unfortunately, they'd probably find someone just as bad.
Luckily for me, competency standards for blog (commenters are still relatively low...)
Unfortunately, they'd probably find someone just as bad.
Luckily for me, competency standards for blog (commenters are still relatively low...)
Posted by: CK MacLeod at November 15, 2007 11:54 AM (dvksz)
7
So XDem, the Carter years were all YOUR fault. ;<
Posted by: David at November 15, 2007 12:12 PM (cPLO6)
8
Tonight on Smartline, sanctions against Iran's military, Arglebargle or Fufferall?
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 15, 2007 12:51 PM (oC8nQ)
9
Almost any polling questions that give some sort of explanation (use the word "because") are worthless for (at least) three reasons:
1. Any encapsulated explanation is of necessity simplistic and incomplete, even when unbiased, and
2. If a justification needs to be provided by the poller for the respondent's opinion, then, clearly, the respondent is assumed to be so uninformed as to not have a useful opinion, and
3. If a forced response question is being asked, the alternatives should, in addition to being mutually exclusive, also be composed of a single clause. What's a respondent supposed to say who thinks, "it was a good (bad) idea, but your reason why is full of crap"?
In other words, it is never good polling practice to say: "Let me explain something to you.....Now, what do you think?" (even assuming that the explanation is fair.)
Push-polls, on the other hand, use this technique routinely....
1. Any encapsulated explanation is of necessity simplistic and incomplete, even when unbiased, and
2. If a justification needs to be provided by the poller for the respondent's opinion, then, clearly, the respondent is assumed to be so uninformed as to not have a useful opinion, and
3. If a forced response question is being asked, the alternatives should, in addition to being mutually exclusive, also be composed of a single clause. What's a respondent supposed to say who thinks, "it was a good (bad) idea, but your reason why is full of crap"?
In other words, it is never good polling practice to say: "Let me explain something to you.....Now, what do you think?" (even assuming that the explanation is fair.)
Push-polls, on the other hand, use this technique routinely....
Posted by: notropis at November 15, 2007 03:04 PM (cP1DU)
Posted by: C-C-G at November 15, 2007 08:00 PM (/fQMn)
11
Hillary:
I don't distrust polls... I distrust statistics.
Wait. NO, polls are good...statistics are good. Would you mind sending me a few bucks so I can kick the white, good old boy club out of Washington (not to mention beat that wannabe black guy and good hair guy for the D nom)?
Thanks ever so much, Mr. G. S.
/sarc
I don't distrust polls... I distrust statistics.
Wait. NO, polls are good...statistics are good. Would you mind sending me a few bucks so I can kick the white, good old boy club out of Washington (not to mention beat that wannabe black guy and good hair guy for the D nom)?
Thanks ever so much, Mr. G. S.
/sarc
Posted by: Mark at November 16, 2007 01:40 AM (P8ylB)
12
No one has any right to be surprised by liberal narrow-mindedness, arrogance or mendacity. Vladimir Bukovsky's description of the Soviet leadership comes to mind: utter scum.
Posted by: Bleepless at November 17, 2007 01:00 PM (Pg+6t)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0078 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0051 seconds, 20 records returned.
Page size 10 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.