Push poll? Depends on how you define it. (UPDATED, 7:05 p.m.)
Updated, 7:05 p.m., to add a quote from Nathaniel Hoffman.
The Center for Media and Democracy defines a "push poll" as follows: "Using the guise of opinion polling, disinformation about a candidate or issue is planted in the minds of those being 'surveyed'. Push-polls are designed to shape, rather than measure, public opinion."
The center's definition of push polling carries more weight with me than Nathaniel Hoffman's.
In pursuit of one of his journalistic habits — jabbing at the Statesman — the Boise Weekly writer accuses us of push polling, because of a survey question we asked about the Boise Downtown streetcar project.
Here's the survey question that raised Hoffman's ire: "Boise should have a downtown trolley paid for by taxpayer money." The survey, when weighted for demographics, found 36.7 percent support for the streetcar and 50.3 percent opposition; the margin for error was 5 percent, with a 90 percent confidence level.
Hoffman took issue with the wording.
"That question sounds more push poll-like than unbiased newspaper survey-like," Hoffman wrote this week. The Weekly was enamored enough of the push poll conclusion that it was repeated in the headline.
I'm not buying. Bottom line, this would be a taxpayer-funded project. City Hall hopes to find the $60 million largely through a combination of federal stimulus dollars and a local improvement district, paid by Downtown property owners. That's taxpayer money. There's nothing inaccurate in pointing that out.
Push-polling is a sleazy practice. Accusing the Statesman of engaging in this behavior is pretty serious stuff — particularly when the facts do not back it up.
"I am not asserting that the Statesman is intentionally pushing an agenda with the poll, merely that the question is biased," Hoffman said in an e-mail today.
But here we are, back at definitions. Push-pollsters, by definition, write leading questions to push an agenda. They aren't sloppy or imprecise; they are calculated in what they do. The Weekly's article and headline puts the Statesman in with that crowd — and that's a serious assertion about ethics.
In the end, I still think Hoffman has twisted some facts around to lead his audience towards a preconceived conclusion. Any push-pollster would be proud.
Get Twitter updates on my blog and column and Statesman editorials.
Become a follower. You can
also get updates on Facebook's new Idaho
Statesman Opinion Page.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo- Kevin Richert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Question is questionable
I too found the survey question problematic. I don't care whether it fits anyone's definition of push poll, in my opinion, it is misleading and feeds on the public's lack of information on the project. All major development and transportation projects meet with opposition when proposed. It is years later that everyone decides how visionary they really were! I would like to see the Idaho Statesman help with the effort to educate the citizens of Boise on the impact this kind of project could have, creating a more vibrant and strong downtown.
Education
There is a problem of 'education' when it has a bias toward a particular agenda.
That is usually what The Statesman provides- a bias liberal agenda- and it is seldom a good thing to try to 'educate' people when you have a bias perspective.
For example, Tripper, your very statement, "with the effort to educate the citizens of Boise..." That implies the citizens are not currently 'educated' about the impact of the project... So you are demonstrating a bias opinion about the citizens, unless of course you have evidence of this.
Further, your statement, "...this kind of project could have, creating a more vibrant and stong downtown". Really? Once again, do you evidence of this? And where in YOUR sliver of support (obviously you support the project) do you show the NEGATIVE impacts of the project to weigh against your perceived benefits.
so you make a statement and at the same time, promote "disinformation about a candidate or issue" in the minds of the reader.
Its' called persuasive writing.
I would like Tripper to
I would like Tripper to educate us citizens of Boise on the impact the project could have... and exactly how will it create a more vibrant and strong downtown. And then justify to us the $60 million dollar price tag for a 2 mile track when the economy is in the tank and that money could be used to help Idaho small businesses and would have an immediate impact for them..... A possible "visionary" idea doesn't do a dam thing for the economy or struggling businesses. When the economy gets going again then bring up the trolley and let Boise citzens vote on it, until then go buy one of those big train sets and put it in your yard and ride around. It would make your property more vibrant than anyone elses. You would be the coolest.
I vote for the Boise Weekly on this one.
Push Poll Questions:
Boise SHOULD have a downtown trolley paid for by taxpayer money
Boise SHOULD NOT have a downtown trolley paid for by taxpayer money
A much better survey question:
Do you support the proposed downtown trolley? Yes. No. Undecided.
Sensitive this morning eh?
KR writes, "The center's definition of push polling carries more weight with me than Nathaniel Hoffman's."
I just read Hoffman's piece and I don't see where he defines "push polling". So, KR, your sentence is off. He does write this, "That question sounds more push poll-like than unbiased newspaper survey-like."
I agree with Hoffman.
Let's put it to a survey to EVERY citizen of Boise:
Kevin Richert writes bias editorials. Agree - Disagree.
****
If you, KR, are concerned about him saying you used a push-poll question and then based on your definition it includes the word "misinformation" --- just look at the survey, "Boise should have a downtown trolley paid for by taxpayer money."
That is a statement and not a question. It does have misinformation- "should have" . It expresses an opinion, based on what?(misinformation?).
**
But it appears you think Hoffman is targeting your use of "taxpayer money"-- I think you, KR, are missing his point. I doubt his reference to push-pulling has anything to do with the survey's wording of "taxpayer money" and splitting hairs over whether is federal, local or property tax-- despite the fact the reference is within the same paragraph as the use of "that sounds like push-polling".
****
And, Boise should have a strip club on every corner.
pots and kettles
KR writes, "Instead, Hoffman seems to twist some facts around to lead his audience towards a preconceived conclusion"
Which facts did he twist?
***
To lead his audience towards a _ conclusion...
Wow, is this the black pot typing this morning?
9th Grade Writing Class
Butcher wrote in his 10/4 Reader's Opinion, "Say that an overwhelming majority of the survey participants in Boise oppose the Downtown trolley. This fact will be reported in the Statesman"""
NO that's not true.
What the Statesman reported was:
Survey: A Third of Boiseans Back Streetcar."
There is a difference between a negative and a positive.
There in lies evidence of the Statesman's bias-
A Third of Boiseans Back Streetcar
Only a Third of Boiseans Back Streetcar.
Two-Thirds Oppose Streetcar.
The Majority of Boiseans Oppose Streetcar.
***
It's the same fact- yet they are different messages.
We all learned this in 9th grade, right?
POPULUS
I'll take this example to opine POPULUS, Paul Butcher, and The Best Places to Live Program are junky surveys not to be relied upon.
Thanks for the 411, KR.
Methinks
you are limiting yourself to only one criticism when there were several. Maybe push poll is harsh, but the question does suggest an outcome. Also its misleading in the respect that it doesn't specify whose taxes. One of the selling points of the streetcar was the ability to secure stimulus tax dollars saving Boiseans money. Yet the question implies that all the money for it would come out of their pockets. Thus the question is highly misleading and the results are therefor tainted with more questions than answers. Also the sample of respondents is fairly suspect. And the methods are wholly unfamiliar to me and I'm thinking to most pollsters.
In short, I think Hoffman made some valid points. I can see some campaigns using this type of methodology but I'd rethink whether this is a valuable tool for the Statesman.
Welcome to the club, Nathaniel
It's disappointing to see Kevin get so riled up over Nathaniel Hoffman's compelling reporting. Not surprising, but disappointing.
Just because one "jabs" at the Statesman doesn't mean they are wrong.
Actually, Don ...
I have a lot of respect for Nathaniel Hoffman's writing and reporting. He is a skilled, serious journalist. I just don't agree with his push-polling assertion — and it's a pretty strong charge that merited a response.
And since you've come in, let me try to explain why.
Every edition of the newspaper is open to criticism: Did we cover the right story? Did we play it right? Was our editorial on the mark or was it poorly written and shoddily researched? Did a column have the right tone or did it cross the line to personal attack? That's all in a day's work — and Don, you're certainly never been shy about criticizing us.
Most of the time, the criticism we get from other media or from blogs is really a matter of opinion or taste. I'm actually pretty thick-skinned about that.
Suggesting that a survey question is a "push poll" suggests that we used the survey — and the news page — to advance an agenda. Because that's what push-pollsters do. That's why their tactics are sleazy; I suspect Nathaniel and I would be in complete agreement there.
So, lumping us in with the push-pollsters really questions our ethics. Take the article and the headline literally, and that is the conclusion you have to draw. And that is a serious charge.
Nathaniel sent me an e-mail today saying that he wasn't suggesting we had an agenda — just that we used a biased question. (I'm inserting that quote in the blog next). The problem is, calling the survey question a push-poll does suggest we had an agenda. In my opinion, you just can't get around that.
Much more often than not, I hold my tongue about criticism — from you, from other bloggers and fellow journalists, from commenters here. I weigh in sparingly, and when I think a criticism misses the mark or is somehow misleading. That's where I am today.
And, if nothing else, Nathaniel's story and this post have started a good discussion about the way the media should use survey information. That's always useful.
Kevin Richert
editorial page editor
I've been wondering for months now
What message is the Statesman trying to convey to readers when it posts the same story in 2,3, or 4 locations on its homepage? That you want to make sure readers don't miss seeing it and hopefully read it, because you think it is really important? You're not polling readers, but you are certainly pushing them, aren't you?
Friend, sit down and we will learn you something...
When the McClatchy Pilgrim Server has tea with Pluck it asks how many individual queries (colloquially termed 'hits' or 'views') were made on the items stored in it's pointy storage network. Pluck will come back and say (for instance) X views, Y comments and Z recommendations for "Herniated duck receives successful surgery" and so on. The items with the most accumulated traffic by these standards is assessed a point value and ranked in order for a certain, indeterminate period before another tea occurs.
What you are complaining about is simply a matter of the article being revised or reposted. IS.com doesn't tend to update a story as is but instead issues a new page. As a result the noobs get confused and some of the senior members also and come to the conclusion that they dumped the comments that were made and holler about "CENSORSHIP". If the topic was hot then several versions might appear in the Most Popular lists you see at the bottom of each page or on the home page listings. It will also often show in several sections if the topic crosses and meets those sections qualifications.
Maybe this seems a bit much. To be the Devil's Advocate however I have to point out that the editorial staff here do not like to alter stories that will also be in the PAPER paper in order to preserve continuity and clarity between the two. VOICES is NOT a normal part of the PAPER edition at all. It is the older FORUMS section and is for discussions, many of which fall outside of the paper version and they have a life of their own. As an evolution of the format and mainly because of spamming troubles in user-created content all user-created content was removed, more sections were shared with the home site, new blogs were created and staff will import some items to their IS.com sections but often not simultaneously.
To preserve the story as it was reported, and they are ARCHIVED eventually for revenue, the original article is usually superceded. As a strange side effect if enough view the archival items they can be included in the current rankings...or maybe staff dredges them back up.
(Note that 3-4 different writers covering the story till it suffocates is still not groovy)
Now you are learned and school's out. My last lesson is don't fight with girls on the playground or you'll wonder why nobody in Garden City likes you. Aloha.
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...
I'm going to quibble with you F.O.
Perhaps you took my ribbing of K.R. too seriously, but since you put so much effort into defending him (nice job, BTW!), I just want to point out a few areas where I think your defense is weak.
Not every story that appears in a newspaper has news value and therefore does not lend itself to consequential updates or to being placed in cross sections of the homepage, yet these stories too sometimes appear twice, usually in the same section of the paper. The first thought that comes to my mind when I see this is oops, which falls short of being a compliment, but when a double posting survives the reasonable time test for removing one of the posts, then I have to believe it was done intentionally for reasons that aren't apparent to the reader. When basically the same story appears 3 or 4 times, even if it is just for a few hours, I want to know who the person was who had a finger stuck on the submit button. Regarding some stories but not all, I still think the multiple postings might be an online newspaper's rendition of "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" For all other stories, I perceive it was too much trouble for someone to remove the irrelevant posts. I can imagine all sorts of things, none of which are sinister and neither are they flattering.
One thing I know for sure, the print version never publishes the exact same story in multiple sections of the paper as that would be a waste of ink and paper, and since the online homepage is just that, a page, it isn't necessary to beat us over the head or shout. I'm also aware the print version doesn't reprint the same stories every day for 2-4 weeks, which may be the other side of the same coin when IS.com does this, but I think the reaction of online readers is the same as it would be for paying customers of the print edition. Stale articles are boring.
So quibble.
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...
The best push poll uses 6V6 tubes.
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...
I can't imagine anyone suggesting, ............
let alone actually believing, that the Statesman has an agenda -- I mean really, how uneducated and misinformed can the masses out there really be!
The media and not just the Statesman....
continually misrepresent survey research. Part of the problem is a lack of knowledge about survey research in general. Another part is making an honest mistake - writing valid survey questions in not an easy task. Take the question that appear on the Statesman online - generally not very good writing of question items.
Dr. Doolittle's Push Me, Poll You was interesting...
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...
Question Was Slanted as Was Headline
People who are dead set against the project refer to it as a "Trolley" -- probably because it rhymes with folly -- while those undecided or for it tend to call it a "streetcar".
A trolley is a vintage streetcar -- this is not what is being proposed or was shown in artists renditions at the downtown open house.
The Statesman's misleading headline "Survey: A third of Boiseans back streetcar" implies 2/3 do not when the survey, for what its worth, indicates respondents were evenly divided
The survey showed:
36.7% in favor
13% undecided
Total: 49.7% either in favor or undecided
50.3% opposed
The survey has a margin of error of 5% and a confidence level of only 90% which means that 10 times the margin of error will be above 5% if 100 surveys were given.
In other words, considering the margin of error, the city is evenly divided and opposed could actually be 45.3% and it could more in 10% of like surveys.
And why didn't the Statesman's article mention that Gary Michael, retired Albertsons CEO and downtown Boise resident, was appointed chairman of the 35 member Boise Streetcar Task Force. Other members include Chuck Winder, Republican State Senator; Skip Oppenheimer and reps from Simplot and US Bank as well as cross section of citizens and business reps. The task force's recommendation in due in January.
As Nathan Hoffman points out the problem with the poll is that respondents were primarily Statesman readers, then balanced for demographics (on what basis?). KR's objection to "push poll" diverts from the real issue: a questionable poll, misrepresented as reflecting Boiseans attitudes..
The correct phrase is "dead horse" or even "useless waste"...
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...
Nu Moth...en estilo de "Fox News".
Undecided indicates they don't know. You cannot count it with the YES vote and call it NEARLY EVEN or you work on a talk show.
NEXT and muy pronto, Senor Quickstraw!
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...
A survey should use actual questions...
"Boise should have a downtown trolley paid for by taxpayer money."
That is NOT a question. It is a (leading) statement. Pretty basic stuff, I can't believe KR cannot see this.
BTW, "BRR" apparently stands for Boise Railroad. Shazam!
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...