Confused about Polls?

Why is it everytime some dimwit like Chris Matthews or Tim Russert is faced with a new poll that has a "starting" or "troubling" result they immediately ask (some other journalist inside-baseball type) "What does this mean?" or "Help me figure out what is going on here?" There then follows lengthly unsubstantiated suppositions about what could have possibly been driving the responses.

Newsflash: Tim, Chris, et al,
Polls happen when someone called a Pollster actually asks questions, and records the responses. Polls are not entrails to be divined, nor are they some sort of astological charts to be "interpreted."

If you want to know why the poll "says" something, why don't you ask someone why they said it. You could even ask the pollster himself, although in fairness they do sometimes do this.

I find in infuriating that Matthews will look at a "poll" like this:

Hillary Clinton: How likeable is she?
Yes 39%
No 29%
No answer 30%

and somehow conclude that she has a likeability "problem."

#1 who gives a sh%t?? If some pollster asked me a question this vapid, I would poke him in the eye with a sharp stick.

#2 Why does likeability even matter? Is she running for prom queen? What about competance, experience? I suppose these kind of things only matter to the personal responsibility crowd.

#3 Just for comparison purposes, I ran my own poll. Here it is:

George Bush, likeable?
Yes 0%
no 100%*
no answer 0%

sample size, 1**, margin of error +- 1.
** me

You may insert any name of any candidate in place of George Bush since he is probably not running again. But do you get my point?

#4 Is Chris Matthews illiterate or just retarded to conclude that if the answer is 29% say a candidate in not likeable, that she has a likeability problem?

#5 I suppose it would be impossible to think about why the respondents answered a poll question they way they did. That would mean having to talk to a pleb. Much nicer to have a lovely chit chat with all your millionaire pampered elite media darlings. Who cares if it is meaningless?

The Fourth Estate: R.I.P.

I have been saying for a long time that the news media is not some honorable, glorified quasi-branch of a democratic government. It is a business and is run like a business. In fact some might say that before McLuhan coined the term 'media' it was described as The News Business. Just because it was populated with independent minded ethical individuals (I am thinking Edward R. Murrow, Cronkite and Woodword & Bernstein types here) does not mean that it is any less of a business. And business exists for one purpose only, to make a profit, something I have no doubt that William Randolph Hearst would have said.

So in that vein, here is a post from Tiny revolution that succintly and expertly says exactly what I have been saying, only much better than I can:

One thing I repeat is that the mainstream media does a FANTASTIC job. Day in and day out, they turn in an extraordinary performance—at what they exist to do. And that is to make as much money as possible.

Of course, in terms of helping people learn about the world, they are an eternal catastrophe. But why would we ever expect any different? The mainstream media is made up of gigantic corporations. Like all corporations, they manufacture a product, which is their audience. They sell this product to their customers, which are other huge corporations.

Informing people about the world is not just irrelevant to the purpose of making money, but in many ways actually HURTS a corporation's profitability. No business goes out of its way to piss off its owners and customers.

Now, obviously it's true you hear constantly about the media's Unending Fight For Truth. But you also hear constantly that a fat man wearing a red suit breaks into America's homes at the end of each year to distribute new X-boxes. Neither of these things is real.

I was thinking this when I read this statement by the perspicacious Digby:

This [the Judith Miller hoo-ha] is at its essence about a toxic political culture. The press has abdicated its responsibility to hold the powerful accountable.

I almost always think Digby is right, on every topic. But here's the thing: the press doesn't HAVE this responsibility. Gigantic corporations, by law, have one and only one responsibility, to make as much money as they possibly can.
Sure, they pretend they carry the awesome burden of holding the powerful accountable, just like Wal-Mart pretends it's deeply concerned with the well-being of its employees. And in fact, some New York Times managers may even believe they are engaged in the Unending Fight For Etc., Etc. But that doesn't change the fact that if the need for huge profits ever conflicts with holding the powerful responsible—and it will, constantly—you really shouldn't wait up.

Later, Digby wrote this about the talented Ms. Miller:

How on earth does someone this vapid become an "expert" on national security issues for the New York Times?

Again, a huge corporation like the New York Times pretends—even to itself—it wants someone smart, hard-hitting, etc. to cover national security issues. But in reality, it selects for vapidity. Judith Miller rose to the top of the New York Times not IN SPITE OF being unbearably vapid, but BECAUSE she's unbearably vapid.

Christopher Dickey of Newsweek is, I think, completely right about this:

Few newspapers, magazines or networks are willing to pay for high-priced low-volume journalism. It's so much easier--so much more cost effective--to take mass-produced information off the shelf and embellish it with a few opinions, or just to receive wisdom from the folks in power. Many critics are complaining about all the money that Judy's case has cost the Times. But maybe they're missing the point. Think of all the money she saved the Times by getting headlines day after day from top-level sources instead of working on a project year after year just to shoot those sources down.

So, progressives need to let go of the hope that the mainstream media is ever going to be much different from what it is today. We can't change much about reality if we keep hoping Santa Claus will bring us presents, because there is no Santa Claus.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at October 19, 2005