Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (72514)	9/22/2004 8:29:46 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

The Democratic take. THE POLLSTERS Mark Mellman Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982, including Sen. John Kerry this year. Just say the polls aren’t clear This is neither a diatribe against the press nor against Gallup’s likely-voter model. It is a plea for modesty in media interpretation of poll data. It is abundantly clear that polls on the presidential contest conducted by respected survey-research firms are all over the place. Within a few days recently, two of the oldest names in the business had dramatically different results that would lead to conclusions about the race that are diametrically opposed. Harris said John Kerry was ahead by one point, while Gallup found Kerry trailing by eight. At about the same time, Pew had President Bush ahead by one while CBS pegged his lead at eight points. Truth is, that has happened during many weeks of this campaign. Back in March, Gallup had Kerry ahead by six points. Less than a week later, a CBS/New York Times poll reported Bush ahead by eight. On almost exactly the same days in June, the AP reported definitively that Bush was ahead by one point while the Los Angeles Times was just as sure that it was Kerry who led by seven points. The reasons for these divergences are fascinating grist for future columns. But, clearly, not all of these results can be definitively true at the same time. The conclusion is inescapable: at minimum, the polls produce an uncertain portrait of the state of the race. Yet, you would not know that from the headlines. On the basis of the Gallup poll, USA Today proclaimed, “Bush has solid lead.” UPI wrote: “Gallup poll says Bush is clear leader.” “Bush opens lead despite unease in survey” graced The New York Times front page. These press accounts convey little sense of uncertainty. Most contain at best a passing reference to polls with vastly different results. A few contain separate articles analyzing why polls vary. In each case, though, the story on the state of the race is based almost exclusively on that outlet’s own poll. Journalists with whom I have discussed the problem lean toward one response: “We trust the poll we paid for.” This is understandable as an economic criteria, but not as a journalistic one. As economic entities, newspapers and networks have a clear interest in focusing on their branded products. Increasing consumer awareness and influencing the political dialogue are good business. But they are not relevant to the search for truth. The truth is clear. Uncertainty looms large. Uncertainty may not sell papers or create the aura of clairvoyance, but it has the benefit of accurately reflecting reality. Reputable polls disagree. Indeed, even when the polls appear to agree, they aren’t always correct. The very latest polls in 2000 had Bush and Gore tied, but many of the closing stories in 2000 suggested a clear Bush lead in the polls. He lost the popular vote. I suggest a simple syllogism. The truth is that the state of this year’s presidential contest is uncertain at best. Journalists report the truth. Therefore, journalists should be reporting that the state of the race is uncertain. Instead, we get each media outlet putting faith in its own poll as revealed truth and therefore reporting the race as a certain Bush lead or a certain tie. Only a consumer who consults a variety of media outlets would have a clear idea of how unclear the current picture is. It should not be so difficult for readers and viewers to get a picture of reality. A little modesty in the interpretation of one’s own polling is clearly in order.

To: LindyBill who wrote (72514)	9/22/2004 8:34:02 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

I just received this e-mail from the mom of the most hard-core pacifist and Democratic family I know. I have been answering questions from them for two months as their son, a HS senior, is interested in joining the Army. Notice the last line. On another note, Bob spoke with Alex about the beheadings this week. Alex was very upset by the whole thing. We of course cannot understand how angry you have to be to think it is ok to cut someone's head off while they are screaming for mercy. We did explain to the kids that we expect more violence as the election nears. And of course, there are candidates in (deleted) every day- today it is Bush senior. But everyday someone is here. The threat of terrorism and because these lunatics are getting heated up- that is why I will vote for bush. Carol