Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

48% for Taco Bell; 52% for Invading Iraq

By Matt Taibbi, New York Press. Posted July 11, 2005.


Polling in this country has degenerated almost entirely into a tool for describing consumer behavior, whether the brand names are Coke and Pepsi, or Democrats and Republicans.
Advertisement

Did you know that polling is illegal in some countries? In Russia, published polls are not allowed before an election; the same is true in Nicaragua. In Belarus, polls are illegal in general -- but then again, so is everything else. Still, how interesting!

I think we take our survey freedoms for granted. Nothing else can explain the appallingly low quality of our polling. Polling in this country has degenerated almost entirely into a tool for describing consumer behavior, where the goal of almost every well-funded survey is to make a numerical determination about the strength of X product vs. Y product in the general marketplace.

The brand names might be Taco Bell and Jack in the Box, they might be Democrats and Republicans; the methodology is, to a degree at once damning and hilarious, exactly the same. Take a look at the press releases for two of the top two polls conducted by Zogby last week:

1. Coke Is It: Americans Choose Coca Cola over Pepsi by 47% to 28%; 'Real Thing' Leads Every Demographic; 'Choice of a New Generation' Unpopular With Younger Consumers -- New Zogby Consumer Profile Finding

2. No Bounce: Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech; Question on Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of Divisiveness in Congress -- Want Bi-Partisan Solutions -- New Zogby Poll

The degree to which polling methodology reflects the bias of the interested (and usually commissioning) parties is seldom noted when the polls are cited by reporters. For instance, pre-election polls are almost always presented in their, final, less embarrassing, airbrushed form -- e.g., 51 percent for Bush, 49 percent for Kerry -- when the actual numbers are more like 26-24 percent, if you include nonvoters.

Respondents, when quizzed, about, say, their favorite fast-food restaurant, are never asked the obvious cross-reference questions. Thus you never see press releases that read like this: "74 percent of Americans who cannot climb two flights of stairs without gasping for breath said that McDonald's was their favorite fast-food destination, while a surprising 47 percent of respondents who 'expect to be dead within weeks' said that the Wendy's Big Classic was their 'favorite sandwich.'"

Our prominent polling agencies almost never take it upon themselves to actually pose a new question. Instead, they almost always content themselves with recording the answers to a question that in some very public way has already been asked -- usually in the form of a choice presented by the media. Do you prefer Friends to Seinfeld? Is Michael Jackson guilty or innocent? Are you for or against the invasion of Iraq?

Regarding that last question, numerous polls conducted last week both before and after George Bush's bizarre Iraq address made headlines across the country. The biggest was a CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll, widely rereported under headlines like, "Support for Iraq War Plummets." Its key result was a number indicating that 53 percent of Americans now thought the war was a "mistake."

That single, solitary, unexpressive number -- 53 percent -- reveals the utter poverty of the polling system. It's a number that ought to infuriate people on both sides of the issue. Remember, before the war began, opinion surveys regularly showed support levels for the invasion running at between 70 and 80 percent.

Here is how Steven Kull, a pollster for American Public on International Issues, summed up the nature of Iraq support before the war. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle on April 1, 2003, Kull said he believed that 40 percent of Americans were firmly behind the war, 20 percent firmly opposed it, and the remaining 40 percent supported it "either out of deference to the president or a sense of patriotism." He characterized the stance of the latter group as "pretty soft."

Well, no shit. Just as Kull predicted, the 40 percent firm-support number has remained an absolute constant since the beginning of the conflict. In the CNN/Gallup poll last week, that same 40 percent said they remained firmly in support of U.S. forces remaining in Iraq.


Digg!

Matt Taibbi lives in New York. He covers politics for Rolling Stone and the New York Press.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A great piece!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jul 11, 2005 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a very enjoyable read, pick up Matt Taibbi's new book on the 2004 pesidential race, Spanking The Donkey. It's the best campaign journalism since Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72. You won't be dissappointed.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank You Matt
Posted by: expat in tokyo on Jul 11, 2005 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First and Foremost.. My name is Michael R. Hoctor. And I was part of the so called 20% who firmly realized the bullshit that Bush and Co. were pulling on the Sheeple of this country, and decidely opposed it! Thank you for being so honest and writing such a kick ass article. I can only dream that someday folks like you will be writing nationally sydicated stories(and of course you dont sell out in the process) to bring some REALITY to our "news". God knows we need it

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stats do the job
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jul 11, 2005 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About 40 years ago advertising found out that if you put up a graphic that says millions of people do it,they will.
The same thing does for National Policy.Tell the masses that X% supports anything and you can create sway.This Administration is very good at it.Nixon said it 30 yrs ago.
"We're going to take this contry so far to the right nobody will know it." The Statistians helped that out

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HEY - You made me laugh!
Posted by: bamage on Jul 11, 2005 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Proof positive that "It's funny because it's TRUE!" Maybe Zogby will use you as a consultant on the development of future polling questions...

Just prior to the 4th of July, I left messages with three seperate armed forces recruiting stations, asking for a call back. I was going to invite them to come and join my neighborhood parade. Judging from the number of flags flying, and all the "Support the Troops" magnets on the backs of the SUVs around here (Texas), I'm certain all the patriots in my neighborhood can't wait to sign up their sons and daughters. Sadly, I didn't get a single call back. Guess my neighborhood (white, affluent, Republican) didn't meet the target demographic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Polls
Posted by: davidt on Jul 11, 2005 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again Matt let's them have it like a laser beam between the eyes.

Unanimity through anonymity is the American way, Matt haven't you figered that one out yet?

Reality TV means we can watch other people experience elation, humiliation, adulation, consecration and hopefully beatification. It is much easier to watch than to move off of our dead-ass butts and do something ourselves.

And we have legions of those worthless, odes to cosmetic surgery on the morning crapyacks to pontificate on the real issues like--Was Lincoln Gay?, To Liposuck or to Not Liposuck?, What Will Be Martha's Next Career Move?, Who Is the MOST Desperate Housewife Out There? and that all-time favorite--Dahlings, dahlings you must simply WATCH the new Reality Show "Who Is the Biggest Dumbell on the Early AM Morning News?"

Titter, titter...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Never Mind What They Think; How Much Does It Cost?"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jul 11, 2005 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Polling in this country has degenerated almost entirely into a tool for describing consumer behavior, because this country, or at least its corporate engine, has degenerated almost entirely into describing complex humans as nothing more than consumers – as in, "a wallet with feet."

The sad truth is that corporations, which have wormed their way into every aspect of life in America, from our schools to our government to our "news" media, do not give a crap for people beyond what they can sucker us into buying. People don't matter in Modern America; only the Almighty Dollar does. That's why we have "Minnie Pearl" (the comedienne with price tags still on her hats for those who don't remember) news broadcasts, where everything, EVERYTHING, is only understood by how much it costs, from disasters to inventions. (News departments could probably save a awful lot of chattering if they would just rely on visuals with price tags flashed in front of everything they show – you know, a billion $$ here over a tornado, a few thousand $$ there over a corpse in the street, etc.).

Not much is going to change until we get away from the corrosive effects of an infatuation with money – an infatuation that we now see is unashamedly oozing through our congress and the White House like never before. There ARE other values in life – like the health, welfare and lives of ALL people; I hope that someday we start paying attention to them as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm the wrong demographic
Posted by: DaBear on Jul 11, 2005 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wanna know why I'm never polled on anything of substance. no one ever asked my opinion on the war... is that cuz I'm the wrong demographic?

Polls have always bugged me like that. IMO if you commission a poll, you should have to sign a contract that if the numbers come out in your favor you have to pay for a second run of the numbers to counteract any preferential treatement to getting the result you're paying for. Otherwise polls are meaningless altogether.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Long duk Bong
Posted by: ScottfromModesto on Jul 11, 2005 1:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This guy is the man!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Every Poll You've Ever Seen is Probably Suspect Part 1
Posted by: ccroom on Jul 12, 2005 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Matt has it right, when it comes to the cultural aspects of polls and the ways they are abused to influence our perceptions of reality itself.

But, there's another aspect to surveyin statistical abuse in this country that is purely scientific. Almost no survey that any of us have ever read or heard about in the popular media has ever been statistically valid and representative (in fact, I think that every popular media poll that any of us have ever seen would fail a test of true statistical and scientific validity). Moreover, because of our collective, cultural lack of knowledge about statistics, most Americans believe that statistics are mere percentages, and this is also not true.

In order to have a truly representative, statistically valid sample, you first have to use a very complex mathematical formula (I don't have all the special characters to list it here) just to determine how many people you need to interview in order to successfully extrapolate results to the rest of the population (for our current population of 250,000,000, you need a sample size of at least 385 people, and many polls do not even have that many respondents).

Once you find out the number of people you interview, each person needs to be randomly selected to complete the survey, and many popular media polls we read about are merely quota sampled, meaning they get whomever will respond to their surveys, without any random selection. People who zealously respond to surveys often have an ax to grind, and tend to be ideologically different from those who are purely randomly selected. The reason why random selection of respondents is important is because the only way a sample can accurately depict the representative behaviors and beliefs of the people in the population is by random selection of each respondent, and a survey cannot be considered representative unless the respondents were randomly selected.

So when you read a survey in the popular press, make sure that you realize that it's not worth believing unless every participant was randomly selected, and their sample size is (at least) 385. Most of our survey agencies, from Neilsen down to Pew, do not use random selection, and rest assured that the polls you see in USA Today are probably the worst of the whole lot. (Continued in next posting.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Every Poll You've Ever Seen is Probably Suspect Part 2
Posted by: ccroom on Jul 12, 2005 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also remember that the p-value in statistics is usually .05 or 5%, so up to 5% of survey findings can be skewed in either direction, as 5% is usually considered to be the "magical" number in statistics that represents the likliehood of mere chance skewing the data (if results are above a 5% difference, then there might be a real correlation going on).

So, just remember that statistics are bastardized by people in power, who rely on our lack of knowledge about it and our gullibility to convince us with information that many of us automatically believe to be scientifically valid. If you distort statistical values enough and use inappropriate formulas and measures, you can use the resulting, so-called "evidence" so say things like "the effectiveness of abstinence education has been proven," "human behaviors have no reliable impact on global warming," and that "a majority of the coutry still believes that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11." "Statistics" can be used to support practically anyone's agenda as long as we continue to be ill-informed about how they work, and fail to recognize when inappropriate statistical measures are being applied, and as long as our political and business interests are willing to sell their souls, trading immediate personal enrichment for the very fututre of our species (the "scientists" who work for ExxonMobil are actually paid to bastardize statistics to make Americans believe that there's either no such thing as global warming, or that human activity has nothing to do with it--almost every "scientist" that has released a report stating that global warming doesn't exist, or that it is not influenced by human activities has been paid by ExxonMobil, so absolutely stop buying their gas unless you want the seas to boil and reclaim all the land on this planet).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Every Poll You've Ever Seen is Probably Suspect Part 3
Posted by: ccroom on Jul 12, 2005 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In short, remember that if it's not a random sample, the results cannot possibly be accurately extrapolated to speak for the entire country. Random equals representativity in the world of statistics, and it is vastly easier for a polling or research organization to just talk to enough people to fill a quota than selecting all the respondents through the use of a random number chart. The more we collectively know about all of these things, the less they'll be able to manipulate us, so take a statistics course if you are at all worried about beileving polls which seem highly suspect. Also, the book Research Methods in Anthropology by H. Russell Bernard, has a number of easy-to read sections on statistics, and is a good resource for anyone wanting to know more about this most insidious form of governmental and big business manipulation. Don't let them hide behind "science" when that "science" they are touting could be done by Karl Rove, or even a sixth grader with a computer.

Sincerely,
Christopher Croom

P.S.: Sorry that I had to post this in three parts. AlterNet should realize that it's nearly impossible to bring a complete thought to fruition in 2500 characters or less.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Applause
Posted by: Tommy on Jul 12, 2005 5:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe if the polls back then had been conducted differently, we might have had different results. Imagine a March 2003 poll that posed the following questions:

Would you yank your son out of college and send him to die for this bullshit?

Would you yourself be willing to give your life for this cause? If yes, grab your shit; there's a bus outside.


That is incredible writing that cuts right to the point. If the President tells you something, are you willing to stake your child's life on it? How about your own?

Clinton's blow job cost Americans nothing but a few days of self-righteous titters. Bush's snow job cost Americans thousands of lives.

I'd rather have a President that gets some as opposed to one that kills some instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]