• cynicism
• political rhetoric
• polling

A recent Facebook exchange got me thinking about a cynicism feedback loop and political rhetoric.

Last week, I posted a Washington Post story to Facebook about support for the public option. The story quoted some poll numbers that indicated that a majority of Americans support the public option. A friend of mine from college commented on this post, and the following change ensued:

Friend: Don't you wonder if any poll nowadays is accurate?? I truly think it just matters who takes it and how they "fix" the results.... On both sides....

Jim: The nature of polling is that a) there will be certain biases and b) there will be a margin of error. Luckily, credible pollsters release their numbers and their questions so that people can analyze for biases/leanings. A lot of people do this work (Nate Silver, who helped start up Baseball Prospectus, is one: http://fivethirtyeight.com).

So,yes...we should always be skeptical of polls. But that doesn't mean they're completely useless. This particular poll has a margin of error of 3 points, so the numbers might actually be slightly lower. But most polls agree that 50%+ favor a public option.

Friend: If you say so...

Jim: No, see that's that thing...*I* don't say so. These pollsters says so. I'm not inventing this. I'm delivering evidence. But your response to evidence is "If you say so..." It's pretty frustrating.

I'm not saying every poll says the same thing, and I'd be interested in some competing poll numbers. Or I'd even be interested in some kind of thoughtful counterargument. Maybe a sentence or two? But instead of any kind of thoughtful response, I get "If you say so..." Which isn't a response at all...and isn't worth the two seconds that it took to type.

Seems like I might be wasting my time here...yup, I'm definitely wasting my time.

Friend: You are funny.... Polls are so rigged to an agenda. It's not a Liberal/Conservative thing or Democrat/Republican thing. I seem to have struck a nerve. Sorry man, not my intent. I just think all polls are pretty bogus on either side. The media is jacked up. WHO DEY!!

(Note: That last "WHO DEY" was a reference to the Bengals beating the Steelers a few weeks ago. "Who dey!" is a Bengals rallying cry.)

I have had some Facebook conversations with this friend before, and there is no question that we represent very different positions on the political spectrum. But that's not what concerns me here. What concerns me is that his cynicism has reached such an extreme point. Everything is "rigged to an agenda" and my hope to better understand polls means that I am "funny." That is, I am naive. I am "so cute" to think that polls can be worth anything. Everything's got a bias. So, fuck it...no use even reading it.

Fast forward to today's post at FiveThirtyEight.com about a recent Zogby poll that asks the following question:

Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants the FCC to force good white people in positions of power in the broadcast industry to step down to make room for more African-Americans and gays to fill those positions. Do you agree or disagree that this presents a threat to free speech?

As Nate Silver notes, this is an extremely unfair representation of what LLoyd actually said, and the numbers Zogby reported are essentially worthless.

So, does the existence of this poll prove my friend's point that it's all "rigged" and that I am so silly for thinking that there's any hope in decoding the "bogus" information flying around out there?

Well, as I note in the exchange above, pollsters release their questions and their methods with each poll. If they don't, they should not be given any consideration. Most news outlets and bloggers follow this rule of thumb. But even if they didn't (ahem, Drudge), the information is out there in the open for all to see. If you're curious about a poll's credibility, you can read all about it on various websites.

But who has the time to do this? Who really wants to pick apart data collection methods and poll questions? What normal person actually has the time or patience to determine whether a poll is left-leaning or right-leaning or whether the margin of error is too large?

And this brings me to what I see as the main problem here: The news media continues to fail us on a daily basis by not doing this kind of analysis. And to make matters worse, the general failure of news media breeds apathy and cynicism. Is my friend shirking some responsibility here by failing to seek out credible information? Yes, I think he probably is. But the complete and utter failure of the news media, on most fronts, only provides him with more ammo for his cynicism. Maybe I'm being a bit hard on news media, and maybe the situation is more complicated. Maybe the problem is an apathetic polis, a country that has become too comfortable to do the work that's required to be an informed citizen.

But given the continual complaints about how Craigs List is driving newspapers out of business, or the about the "cult of the amateur," or about the consideration of a bailout for newspapers...given all of this, I guess I think it's okay to be hard on the news media. It's the job of journalists to responsibly filter information for their readers, and I'm just not sure that's happening as often as it should.

But maybe I am just "funny."

• Jim Brown's blog
• Login or register to post comments