As someone who once was "between real jobs." I did some telephone marketing kind of work, one of which was called polling, in order to pay the bills. I learned that polls, some of them, at least, try to manipulate the person being polled. I specifically recall a script that asked about candidate preference, and then said something along the lines of "How would it affect your vote if you knew Candidate X had been arrested for ___________? Insert some heinous crime. It doesn't actually say that the candidate had been arrested for that, but the implication is there, and I have no doubt that it would affect their attitude towards that candidate. I simply refused to ask that, and didn't return the next day. There are plenty of more meaningful organizations needing telemarketers, at least there were back then.
Thx! You made my point before I wrote it! I am highly biased against polls, with so many strikes against them from such a variety of angles. Not least of which is those trained monkeys reporting excitedly, typically waving wands at not the screen they're describing..
They could ask, "Who are you voting against?' If you lived somewhere where your vote didn't count (like me in DC), whom would you vote for. If you are in a swing state would you vote your conscience or strategically?
Does not matter to me at all. Waaay past time to stand up for ourselves and our country for a change. For me, voting my conscience is the most strategic option.
When and how have people been manipulated away from informed voting on issues to voting for popular identities? This 'strategic' voting doesn't prompt boatloads of red flags?
Sam Husseini, thanks for the reminder that polls, outside of ridiculous, are a potentially dangerous herding to the slaughterhouse. Spending my time trying to get informed on the issues is hard enough.
Compared to the scientific rigor with which meaningful polls should be administered and reported (as valid and reliable as, say, medical treatments for public consumption(!)), for all the 'information' they supply, these days I could take an exit poll of 4-legged departures from my local veterinarian and without saying how I asked or how I understood their answers, unblinkingly report that 95% of American patients were not pleased with their care.
Excellent analysis of an essential force that changed Harris from an empty pants suit into a triumphant leader of a politics of joy, or Kraft durch Freude, as they used to call it. Virtually overnight she becomes the savior of our democracy and raises $350 million!
But the fix was in even before the Democratic convention. The day Netanyahu spoke to his devotees in Congress it was late that afternoon before I could check the news to see how it went. So I logged into New York Times Breaking News to check and am surprised I have to scroll down to find any mention of Netanyahu. And get this: before any word of Netanyahu there are seven articles/opinion pieces about Kamala Harris, each touting one or another of her virtues. Only a towering figure could upstage Netanyahu like that.
It's extraordinary how they're manufacturing Harris as a shoe-in to the presidency, whether by hook or by crook. You might think that with nearly half of Americans identifying as independents and Democrats and Republicans each getting only about 25% of registered voters, it would be a cake walk to victory if the leading Independent and the Republican candidates united for a presidential election. But no, it will be a battle royal, mostly legal if we're lucky.
I am not sure which I would prefer - no more news about Kamala Harris or no more news about Benjamin Netanyahu. I usually end up by turning my TV off. Then I don't feel I am wasting time by watching disgusting brain-washing disguised as non-news.
<< Only a towering figure could upstage Netanyahu like that. >> either that or... someone the formerly losing D political elite (served well by corporate media + huge campaign fund $$$$) decided to suddenly elevate because she makes them all look better... and is now their malleable puppet.
A simple Tests & Measurements class worth its salt would teach that polling mechanics are rife with opportunities for misuse and abuse. Potential bias in questions, questioners, and respondents - anything and everything affects outcome: content and length, question composition, administration time of day and environment, perceived sex/race of questioner, etc. How respondents are chosen, too: age, sex, income/assets, education, geographic location, hobbies, etc. all affects results.
Reporting responses in per cents is disingenuous at the least. A survey of typically 1,000 - 2,000 people generalized as "X% of Americans" seems irresponsible and unethical journalism.
And what replication before administration: testing for validity and reliability? Since the point is impacting percipient thought and action and any 'do no harm' threshold is eschewed, and begging the question of why questionably informed anonymous opinions should matter anyway, a single reputable value of a poll seems to be in reporting the highly limited specifics of the survey reported. With an accompanying appeal limited most likely to only those involved.
They are manufacturing consent with limited choices & skewed results.. nice work Sam!
And hardly the first time. Just apparently feeling comfortable to be more obvious.
we're always wondering who they're even talking to! and yes, great job, Sam!! thanks always for your work and invaluable observations and analysis.
As someone who once was "between real jobs." I did some telephone marketing kind of work, one of which was called polling, in order to pay the bills. I learned that polls, some of them, at least, try to manipulate the person being polled. I specifically recall a script that asked about candidate preference, and then said something along the lines of "How would it affect your vote if you knew Candidate X had been arrested for ___________? Insert some heinous crime. It doesn't actually say that the candidate had been arrested for that, but the implication is there, and I have no doubt that it would affect their attitude towards that candidate. I simply refused to ask that, and didn't return the next day. There are plenty of more meaningful organizations needing telemarketers, at least there were back then.
Thx! You made my point before I wrote it! I am highly biased against polls, with so many strikes against them from such a variety of angles. Not least of which is those trained monkeys reporting excitedly, typically waving wands at not the screen they're describing..
Do people actually read polls?
The are the backbone of "reporting" esp on tv and radio now.
Yikes!
Are you serious? This is horrific!
Even independent media uses them.
That's worse than horrible - unless they're more responsible?
well... how valid is their analysis when they include these so-called 'polls?'
The control is becoming more and more obvious
They could ask, "Who are you voting against?' If you lived somewhere where your vote didn't count (like me in DC), whom would you vote for. If you are in a swing state would you vote your conscience or strategically?
I’m not a huge fan of the safe state strategy. Will try to write up my crit sometime.
Does not matter to me at all. Waaay past time to stand up for ourselves and our country for a change. For me, voting my conscience is the most strategic option.
When and how have people been manipulated away from informed voting on issues to voting for popular identities? This 'strategic' voting doesn't prompt boatloads of red flags?
I try not to be angry no matter what. But disgust was not one of the seven choices, so my 2nd best choice would have to be anger.
The media is astonishingly biased and prejudiced
and ignorant it seems to me
Sam Husseini, thanks for the reminder that polls, outside of ridiculous, are a potentially dangerous herding to the slaughterhouse. Spending my time trying to get informed on the issues is hard enough.
Compared to the scientific rigor with which meaningful polls should be administered and reported (as valid and reliable as, say, medical treatments for public consumption(!)), for all the 'information' they supply, these days I could take an exit poll of 4-legged departures from my local veterinarian and without saying how I asked or how I understood their answers, unblinkingly report that 95% of American patients were not pleased with their care.
Excellent analysis of an essential force that changed Harris from an empty pants suit into a triumphant leader of a politics of joy, or Kraft durch Freude, as they used to call it. Virtually overnight she becomes the savior of our democracy and raises $350 million!
But the fix was in even before the Democratic convention. The day Netanyahu spoke to his devotees in Congress it was late that afternoon before I could check the news to see how it went. So I logged into New York Times Breaking News to check and am surprised I have to scroll down to find any mention of Netanyahu. And get this: before any word of Netanyahu there are seven articles/opinion pieces about Kamala Harris, each touting one or another of her virtues. Only a towering figure could upstage Netanyahu like that.
It's extraordinary how they're manufacturing Harris as a shoe-in to the presidency, whether by hook or by crook. You might think that with nearly half of Americans identifying as independents and Democrats and Republicans each getting only about 25% of registered voters, it would be a cake walk to victory if the leading Independent and the Republican candidates united for a presidential election. But no, it will be a battle royal, mostly legal if we're lucky.
I am not sure which I would prefer - no more news about Kamala Harris or no more news about Benjamin Netanyahu. I usually end up by turning my TV off. Then I don't feel I am wasting time by watching disgusting brain-washing disguised as non-news.
Red or blue nothing will change. We need more colors.
From yesterday, https://mondoweiss.net/2024/08/biden-gives-arms-shipment-proponent-top-israel-policy-role/
<< Only a towering figure could upstage Netanyahu like that. >> either that or... someone the formerly losing D political elite (served well by corporate media + huge campaign fund $$$$) decided to suddenly elevate because she makes them all look better... and is now their malleable puppet.
1 Democratic leaders are chosen democratically by constituents and abide by law.
2 Autocratic leaders do what they and their donors want; they ignore constituents and law.
3 If we think we're a democracy, we do #1.
4 Seems our administrative and congressional 'leaders' do #2.
5 If we want #1 it's time to change #4.
6 We need broad information quick on lawful candidates! We already know too much about the violators.
A simple Tests & Measurements class worth its salt would teach that polling mechanics are rife with opportunities for misuse and abuse. Potential bias in questions, questioners, and respondents - anything and everything affects outcome: content and length, question composition, administration time of day and environment, perceived sex/race of questioner, etc. How respondents are chosen, too: age, sex, income/assets, education, geographic location, hobbies, etc. all affects results.
Reporting responses in per cents is disingenuous at the least. A survey of typically 1,000 - 2,000 people generalized as "X% of Americans" seems irresponsible and unethical journalism.
And what replication before administration: testing for validity and reliability? Since the point is impacting percipient thought and action and any 'do no harm' threshold is eschewed, and begging the question of why questionably informed anonymous opinions should matter anyway, a single reputable value of a poll seems to be in reporting the highly limited specifics of the survey reported. With an accompanying appeal limited most likely to only those involved.