pollsters and the media 6/29/2015 kas political polling book launch, singapore, january, 2012

Pollsters and the Media

04/18/23 KAS Political Polling Book Launch, Singapore, January, 2012.

Harry Truman’s sage advice on political polls.Harry Truman: “Polls are like sleeping pills, designed to lull voters into sleeping on election day. An overdose can be fatal.” This no longer applies. The media plays a crucial roll in the lead up to election day. Modern media is unrelenting. Social media does not respect election day rules. Many polls are owned and produced by media. Pollsters have become superstars. But the public don’t know if the interpretation and analysis of political polls is accurate, or, indeed, even competent.


How Close are the Pollsters and the Media?

“Increasingly fuzzy” relationship. Now pollsters themselves are in the spotlight. Pollsters fight amongst each other and criticise findings. The media faithfully reports but still use the pollsters, many of whom are affiliated with media groups. The public has no knowledge of whether the media companies have journalists capable of accurately analysing the polls.


Polls don’t lie: but they are only a snapshot.

Polls don’t lie. They are a snapshot in time, albeit subject to many different pressures and variables. Polls can be a valuable counter weight to the traditional journalist-politician relationship. The “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” syndrome. Equally, self serving criticism of polls by politicians can be counter balanced by the media questioning political actions and motives. The media’s ability to accurately reflect and analyse the poll “snapshot” is fundamental to shaping public opinion.


Two Horse Race Syndrome

Journalists interpretations follow “two horse race” syndrome: who is ahead and who is behind? Who is gaining, who is losing?Accuracy is characterised by answering these questions: is it a rolling cross or snapshot survey; which media? emphasis poll gives in headline or bulletin; full or sub-sample?Canadian research shows conversations between journalists and pollsters focuses on the horse race and not the technical aspects.


Information or Entertainment?

Well funded media [television, large newspapers] fund polls and other media follow. Can lead to short cuts/misleading polls from lesser funded media.Finances reduce number of non-media polls [e.g. university polls] compounding perceived media bias if polls are seen as self-serving.Media must resist running polls for entertainment rather than information.This, unfortunately, is not always the case.


Pollster superstars can be dangerous.

Media superstars, like Nate Silver runs “Thirty Eight Under” for the New York Times. He is open in his political affiliations [ left, Democrat in his case]. He criticised Murdoch for buying The Wall Street Journal [right wing bias]. In Britain The Guardian uses polls to push a left wing agenda. Avaaz case.The danger of media bias being influenced by its own pollsters—and its ownership—of polls is stronger now than before.


Lazy journalism: a scourge of polling?

Lazy journalism can result from polling when media are pollsters themselves. Analysis can, thus, be incredibly skewed because journalists don’t understand methodologies, and, most importantly, the influence of the margin for error. The danger of publishing or broadcasting inaccurate analysis increases. Media companies run their own polls and less financial competitors follow them. The potential for inaccurate, lazy analysis is high. Media owned and paid for polls can still be published, even though they might be hopelessly skewed.


The margin of error: frequently, and fatally, overlooked.

The margin of error is frequently ignored by media in interpreting polls, which leads to distorted impressions that shape public opinion. Misleading information that influences events can be given by media who ignore the percentage points.Commercial imperatives versus journalistic imperatives come to the fore. Rather than ditch a flawed poll, media companies will still run them. Pressure from polling organisations to run the poll?


“Polls say”: a dangerous phenomenon of recent times.“Polls say” phenomenon. 24 hour news media a culprit. How can the public know the difference when journalists say “polls say” when polls are often clustered together? Gives apparent precision of news coverage by the journalist, although such a term may not project an accurate picture. Polls are discussed, critiqued and used by politicians and media to suit their own agendas.Between 2000 and 2004 US election. 11,000 references to “polls say” and “polls show” by all media. CNN: 500 times in 1992 and 1996 campaigns.Omnibus and reduced size polls can also influence media, thus, public opinion.Sufficiently obtuse to raise the question whether the journalists know what the polls are saying.


Media too quick to analysis and public interpretations.

Margin of error is crucial. Pollsters can be too quick to publish and media too quick to interpret. Example: despite images of Thailand being split between red and yellow shirt supporters, a 2006 poll found 76% professed no colour attachment at all. Bangkok predictions: polls got it wrong. Media heavily criticised pollsters.Polls provide a counter-weight to the traditional political journalist-politician relationship. But polls, particularly election day polls, neutralise this relationship.


Media can set the agenda through polling reports.

Walter Lippman: “the news media are a source of pictures in our head of a larger world out of reach to most people.” Agenda setting through media interpretation of polls is prevalent, but not always the key driver. The public do not closely analyse issues, but have proven to be intuitive in assessing them. What the public know about the world is largely based on what the media tells it. Do news organisations have an agenda? Fox News? The media ARE the polling source of first choice in many instances.


Sometimes The Media Gets it Wrong

Media DOES set the agenda. Polls measuring public opinion preceded by a pattern of news coverage in months before an event [election].But: the media does NOT always influence the public.Case 1: Lewinsky/Clinton scandal. Despite unrelenting negative publicity the public, ignoring the media and political agendas, judged him on his success or failure in government. He won a second term.Case 2: Current GOP nomination race. Negative adverts by Super PACs [ political action committees aligned to candidates]having greater effect than polls?


What The Media Should Disclose

Who conducted the poll: media must reveal the source.

Sample size: media should quote this.

Margin of error: reporter should quote this accurately.

What questions asked: agenda driven polls can skew questions.

When conducted: events can skew results.


Are media liberal or conservative?

Newsbuster conservative blog survey on media bias: conservatives under represented and liberals over represented. 6% conservative; 53% moderate; 24% liberal and 8% very liberal. What does this mean for media interpretation of polls, particularly the ones they fund?


Liberal, Media, yet the public love conservative Fox News. Why is that?

Fox News [conservative] 1.1 million viewers per day; CNN 434,000; MSNBC 468,000, CNBC [liberal] 176,000 [8 June, 2011].Despite liberal bias in media perception, conservative channel ratings leader. Wall Street Journal gaining on The New York Times.Brit Hume, Fox News, described conservative journalists as a “lonely lot.”Implications for media analysis of polls? Will Fox news be more influential than CNN? Answer: FOX news because it has an AGENDA. CNN remains boringly neutral.


Media rail against polling: yet indulge in it themselves.

Arianna Huffington” “We must stop the pollsters at their source. If we, the people, stop talking we could force leaders to think for themselves.”[1998] Look whose joined the club: Huffington Pollster. Sorry Arianna, polling, has increased in the media unabated since.


Lazy journalism revisited

Christopher Hitchens: Stop “the degradation of our democracy by this polling racket.” Suggested headline: “Minority, Polled by Itself on Own Feelings, Reports Self-Pity on Fresh Topic.” Criticised “sketchy” New York Times reporting of a poll about immigration.


Internet polling: on the increase but some scepticism.

Not scientific enough; not representative of cross section; no established track record for reliability. However, easier and cheaper for today’s media. Analysing and publishing still a calculated risk for media. Mainstream media still skeptical but Internet polling growing.


In this poll the results were inconclusive according to an exhaustive investigation by the news media.

Conclusions: Media’s ability to interpret polls not highly professional. Importance of the margin for error frequently overlooked. Relationship between media and pollsters can be tense. Celebrity pollsters can skew media, and therefore public perceptions. More media commission their own polls. “Polls say” syndrome grown.


pollsters and the media 6/29/2015 kas political polling book launch, singapore, january, 2012

Documents