The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
Fun with Polls II: Oops
: The WSJ/NBC poll below asked Americans whether they gained or lost respect for various institutions in the Schaivo story. In every case, more lost respect than gained:
Media — 51% lost respect
Congress — 50%
Courts — 46%
Bush — 35%
Religious leaders — 26%
Can you provide a link to this poll? You don’t provide all the information.
You say that “in every case, more lost respect than gained” (odd wording), yet only 26% of respondants lost respect for religious leaders. Presumably, then, less than 26% of the respondants gained repsect for religious leaders, but I can’t tell for sure without the data.
I see the link now. If I totally missed it, my fault. If you just added it, thanks.
Yes, you read that correctly; I don’t know how do do tables and so it’s hard to get all columns in. Link added. It’s a PDF (which was linked below as well).
“In every case, more lost respect than gained”
Looking at the data, it should be pointed out that the response “no effect on level of respect” was also offered:
Media: 33% no effect
Congress: 31%
The Courts: 26%
President Bush: 41%
Religious leaders: 48%
In these last two cases, more people said “no effect” than either more/less respect.
And now we find out (as if we didn’t already know) that the Shiavo “talking points” memo distributed amongst the Republicans on Capital Hill originated from the office of Senator Mel Martinez, Republican from Florida.
It wasn’t just that the conservatives weren’t acknowledging the memo came from their side, but then went as far as to suggest that the memo was a “plant” by the Democrats. That’s the kind of despicable neo-conservative behavior that we’ve come to know (and expect) so well.
Martinez says he pulled a copy of the memo from his pocket and inadvertently gave it to Sen Harkin, but he didn’t know anything about what was contained in the memo.
Nor, apparently, does he know how the memo jumped into his pocket.
Polls are worse than useless.
Demographics aside, there’s the bias of the both writer and reader.
Take the way question #7 is written
(30 agreed)
A/Work in a bipartisan way with Republicans to help pass President Bush’s legislative priorities so that we do not have gridlock, OR
(63 agreed)
B/Provide a balance to make sure that President Bush and the Republicans do not go too far in pushing their agenda.
Our government is deliberately designed to be a system of checks and balances.
The surprise here is that even though the question was asked with the most bias possible by making the only right answer (providing a balance) align with liberal interests, that 30 still picked in Bush’s favor!
And then there is the way of the READER.
Mr. Jarvis could have also noted that Bush gained in respect, (21)more than TWICE as much from the debacle than the Democrats did.(10) As did religious leaders. (21)
Remember the poll that said seventy plus percent agreed with what was done to Terri?
Asked this way, a whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.
41% of Americans agree that polls are worthless.
Does anyone else have trouble with a poll asking if the polled has *lost* respect for a particular body because of their actions. That assumes the polled had respect to begin with. Sometimes I didn’t lose respect because there was none to lose.
And I don’t answer the phone, so I usually only respond to polls I choose to take.
On some level, the specificity of this poll and some others conducted recently (relative greatness/sainthood of the pope as an example) are making me rather skeptical of the idea of polling in general.
Certainly, there’s good reason to be skeptical of many polls due to phrasing of questions almost always leading the responder in some way or other.
But in a poll like this, I mean, how many people were thinking about such specifics before the pollster called? I find it doubtful that a great many were.
Wow, everybody lost face. I guess conservation of energy doesn’t apply to political capital.
Am I reading this right? They polled 109 people? Wow!! How much did the polling agency charge WSJ for this (and did they pay for it out of petty cash)?
Edwards: “And now we find out (as if we didn’t already know)…”
An admission that your ideology trumps evidence?
“…that the Shiavo “talking points” memo distributed amongst the Republicans on Capital Hill…”
No, it wasn’t “distributed amongst Republicans”. It went straight from a low-level staffer in Martinez’ office to a Democrat who then distributed it, (rightly, I will allow, but what’s the explanation there?), to other Democrats, saying, “look how degenerate they are.”
“…originated from the office of Senator Mel Martinez, Republican from Florida.”
The staffer has been sacked; MM came forward when he found out it came from his office; the (pathetic) memo was never approved, nor submitted for approval, to MM.
“That’s the kind of despicable neo-conservative behavior that we’ve come to know (and expect) so well.”
What’s with the “neo” ? Is that code for “Jew”? Is it possible to just be “conservative” in 2005?
zeppenwolf:
The neocon label was chosen by members of the administration for their own sense of their own leanings. Accusing Ms Edwards of antisemitism for making use of a very commonly used term in any circumstances would be objectionable, but in this one it is stretching ‘way far to make scurrilous accusations.
As for not being distributed, all we know is that Republicans have not come forward about general knowledge of the memo, but that Martinez originally denied knowledge of it at all. Does this assure you that the memo was really not seen by Republicans but only by Democrats? I hope you aren’t being offered any large bridges as investment opportunities.
And on the subject of polls, Jeff I do believe this particular one is support for your vision of email polling.
Ruth: “The neocon label was chosen by members of the administration for their own sense of their own leanings.”
I don’t remember that. When?
“Accusing Ms Edwards of antisemitism for making use of a very commonly used term in any circumstances would be objectionable…”
I didn’t accuse– I asked a question. Perhaps it’s you who is out of line.
In regards this “very commonly used term”, it seems to me that it *does* have an anti-Semitic nuance, at the times when it is used to refer to those members of the admin who have Jewish or vaguely Jewish names, at the times when it is being explained that our foreign policy is in the hands of these few individuals who have hijacked our foreign policy (indeed our government) to promote Israel’s best interests.
And at the times when it is used in a completely spurious manner when merely “conservative” will do, (or indeed would be more accurate), then I infer that some vague remnant of slander is intended.
“As for not being distributed, all we know is that Republicans have not come forward about general knowledge of the memo, but that Martinez originally denied knowledge of it at all.”
No, we also know that Republicans have said they did not see it, which is entirely different from saying they “have not come forward.” Powerline is following this story very closely– I recommend you start there if you’re interested in the facts.
“Does this assure you that the memo was really not seen by Republicans but only by Democrats?”
Does a Republican saying he didn’t see it assure you he is lying?
“I hope you aren’t being offered any large bridges as investment opportunities.”
No, but thanks for your concern.
zeppenwolf:
It’s something that began in Reagan’s administration, and I can refer you to Irving Kristol’s famous definition:
“A neoconservative is just a liberal who got mugged by reality. A neoliberal is a liberal who got mugged by reality but has not pressed charges.”
While I recall Wolfowitz using it for himself, I didn’t do the research to come up with the source.
While you are correct that you ask a question rather than making an accusation, you bring up a slur that in no way was implied in the post you cited. (Your Question: What’s with the “neo” ? Is that code for “Jew”?)
Glad the bridge is safe.
Ruth: “While you are correct that you ask a question rather than making an accusation, you bring up a slur that in no way was implied in the post you cited.”
I agree, (and never said otherwise), that there is nothing in the post cited referring to Judaism *other than* the prefix “neo” which we now debate.
I appreciate the Kristol reference. However, the fact that I (and surely bazillions of others) were not aware of this origin, and the fact that we did not see this prefix in common currency until the minions at DU, Kos, etc made excessive and gleeful use of it, (too often in the manner I’ve described which *has been* anti-Semitic)– that is adequate grounding for the complaint I’ve made. You are absolutely correct when you say that this prefix has become very common, but it remains relevant *how* it became common, *who* made it common, and *what* nuance they’ve managed to attach to it.
I submit that it was the “angry and too often anti-Semitic fringe left”, (of the kind found at DU/Kos/etc), who more or less forced this prefix into currency whether deserved or not, whether accurate or not. (And yes… types like anti-Semitic Pat Buchanan as well.)
The three questions I asked remain, and I think they remain valid even if partly rhetorical. I will rephrase them:
If there is *not* some disparaging nuance leftover and intended in the term, then from whence comes the left’s obvious glee in using it presently even when spurious or inaccurate?
If there *is* some disparaging nuance intended, (no matter how nebulous), then what is that nuance?
The last of the three questions I had initially asked, (the one you didn’t copy), was, “Is it not possible to simply be ‘conservative’ in 2005?” The fact that this somewhat rhetorical question can be asked seriously at all is compelling evidence that the above questions are not themselves without legitimacy.
Case in point– does Mel Martinez publicly label himself a “neoconservative”? Or was that a spurious appelation in the original post of Ms Edwards, and if so, why?
“Glad the bridge is safe.”
Just as long as you stay off your cellphone while driving on it.
Take the last word if you wish, as I think we should move on– Mr Jarvis certainly has. Hey, I’m scrolling down too far to get here. :) Let’s argue about something more current and in a fresher thread..?
As to possibility of being ‘conservative’ in 2005, indeed, as I often am.
But will hold that the neo-con label has become derisive because of the nature of those to whom it applies, who make a mockery of the basic decency which conservatives usually exhibit.
Last word, you promised! See you again shortly, no doubt.