Media Lies

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. and Ken you do know that those poll numbers are skewed higher D to r and higher 3rd/independents then participated in the last election.

    and with the numbers skewed to the Democrats bush is only in the mid to low 40s

  2. Ken says:

    Most polls show higher D to R than what the exit poll supposedly saw.

    The point is in the trend-lines. Not one poll showed improvement for Bush, most showed stagnation. And yet, the media kept reporting Bush was improving despite evidence to the contrary.

  3. The polls also show a higher D to R to I ratio then voter registration rolls show

    the polls are simply bogus no matter how you slice it.

  4. Ken says:

    Larry, the post showed a long list of polls. Unless you’re going to provide proof that each one of those polls had a Democratic bias, I’m not going to continue to argue with your generic attacks on the polls.

    Besides, it’s the trend lines that really matter to me in this post. I don’t care if in November he had 45% approval instead of 41%, as long as in January that number hasn’t changed despite what the media calls an “improving” job approval – which is false.

  5. You want me to get a composition argument on each of the polls? I can do that if you want. But my point was if the polls are weighted with people who (if voting patterns are accurate) are less inclined to be favorable to the president how can the trends really be relevant or accurate?

  6. Ken says:

    Think about it, Larry. I have a sample of 40% Dem, 35% Rep, and 25% Indie. One month it shows Bush approval at 40%. The next month, the poll shows 40%. Should I be putting out a press release saying “Bush Approval Improves” when it isn’t?

    Now, what if I had a more accurate sample of 37% D, 37% R, and 26% I. One month it gives the President 43%. The next month 43%. Should I be telling people the poll numbers were improving for the President?

    The polls may be biased in their numbers, but if their trends are the issue, and they show no trend, then the media is lying when it says there is a favorable trend when it doesn’t exist.

    My argument isn’t with the Fox Poll that gave Bush higher numbers than the DailyKOS poll might. It’s that Novembers numbers are no worse than January numbers, in virtuall all polls; the media shouldn’t be telling people any different.

  7. But the problem is it isn’t a representative sample. So the sample not moving is less relevant as these polls are paid for by folks who make much more money off the polls being lower or stagnant ( much more in the way of news stories) then higher or dynamic in nature.

  8. Ken says:

    Larry, trust me when I tell you that not even the media can control the results of polls in such a way as to ensure each and every single independent poll was stagnant or lower over the last two months.

    True, polls can be skewed by the sample they use, or by the questions they ask. But if they have the same type of sample and the same questions asked, they can’t just make up a result to their liking – if the sample, questions, and trends are the same, it’s probably because public opinion hasn’t moved.

    Get the conspiracy theory out of your head, as it just doesn’t apply.

%d bloggers like this: