How do Americans feel about all those phone calls the NSA is stuffing into a database? Well, says an ABC-Washington Post poll, 63 percent strongly endorse the program as an effective way to combat terrorism. No, no, says a USA Today poll, Americans oppose it by a 51-43 percent margin. The poll results differ, the USA Today story suggested "because questions in the two polls were worded differently." Gee, do you think? Since USA Today "broke" the story, which in itself suggests that something wrong is being done, do you think there's the slightest possibility those who designed the USA Today poll were trying, however consciously or unconsciously, to get a negative reaction? Just wondering.
A couple of weeks ago, News-Sentinel columnist Kevin Leininger took off on the instant surveys blogs and even newspaper Web sites are getting into the habit of running. The headline on his column pretty well sums up his belief: "Straw polls amuse, but aren't news." Journalists, he said, whether professionals or amateur bloggers, "should not expect readers to sift fact from fiction."
In the old days, we fancied ourselves “gatekeepers”
Comments
Great observations
While I agree that straw polls (for the most part) are amusing, I have seen the evidence that these polls drive some of the news, but thankfully not ALL of it.
It was curious to note that nowhere in Kevin's article (or Leo's blog) was the word PROPAGANDA mentioned, and that is a driving force in much of journalism today.
Propaganda is not only the device by which a dictator can muster his populace behind "his" causes, but can be used to bolster a spirit of patriotism (be it real or contrived), and even keep people from reading "between the lines", as it were.
The "slant" or "spin" that USA Today put in their question bears that out, as Leo stated. And maybe some folks like being led around by the nose...most do not.
Words are a tool (or in many cases, a weapon), and applied to those ends, will inevitably produce the "desired" result, be it a survey, straw poll, or so-called "scientific" poll.
People will judge (or make a choice) by what is said (or NOT said in other instances), and our job is to discern what IS REALLY being said...and to what end.
Everyone is differing in their choices, views, thoughts, and conclusions. And that is predicated upon the premise that we are taking the time to sift the truth from all the information placed at our disposal.
But what the hey...life is ALL about choices anyway, right?
B.G.
FYI, here are the "seven devices of propaganda" I found somewhere and included in a booklet on logic and opinion writing I put together a few years ago:
1. Name calling. Don't discuss the issues. Call attention to the character (or ancestry) of those advocating the issues. Create suspicion with guilt by association.
2. Glittering generalities. Be careful not to cite too many specific facts, which can be checked and verified or discredited.
3. Transference. Appeal to history, revered institutions, documents that back up what you say.
4. Testimonials. So-and-so, whom we all know and respect (or fear), says this must be so, so it is so.
5. Plain folks. Use a lot of virtue words appealing to shining ideals -- love, generosity, bortherhood, humanity -- that get people to accept and approve without too much scrutiny.
6. Bandwagon. Hey, we're all in this together, and you don't want to be the only one out on a limb, do you?
7. Stacked deck. Use just the few facts that support your case, in just the right order. Ignore all else.
All of those techniques are used as substitutes for stating a defensible position and backing it up with facts and logic in an honest effort to seek the truth. If all you read are blogs, of course you wouldn't be aware of them.
Leo:
Excellent analysis of propaganda (imho)!
And nearly all of those 7 "devices" sound a lot like the major media (present company excluded).
Do you suppose that perhaps device #8 could be "sensationalism"?
That is, if you're going to do a "revised" version.
Just a thought.
;)
B.G.