Isn't it time to give the leftist liberal media their marching
orders? Perhaps a modification to the first amendment making
false presentations made in the guise of truth a capital crime?
Aritcle by Dick Morris in NYPOST.COM
October 8, 2002 -- ‘PUBLIC Says Bush Needs To Pay Heed To
Weak Economy," blared yesterday's New York Times. Based on a
telephone survey last week of 564 registered voters, the article
claimed a majority of American voters believed that the president
is spending too much time talking about Iraq while neglecting
domestic problems.
But take a close look at the poll: The phrasing of the questions
is so slanted and biased that it amounts to journalistic "push
polling" - the use of "objective" polling to generate a
predetermined result, and so vindicate a specific point of view.
It was just such polling that led the Democratic Party astray
over the summer and played an important role in catalyzing their
(politically suicidal) criticism of Bush over Iraq. Now the Times
returns with another poll, on the verge of Congress' vote on a
use-of-force resolution, to suggest that voters see the economy
as a bigger issue than Iraq.
Slant No. 1: The Times poll asks voters if they would "be more
likely to vote for a congressional candidate because of their
positions on the economy or foreign policy."
The use of "foreign policy" throws the results way off and allows
the Times to report that voters want more focus on the economy by
57 percent to 25 percent. But on Sept. 8-9 Fox News asked 900
voters a similar question - comparing not economy vs. foreign
policy, but economy vs. national security. The results: an even
split, with the economy pulling 32 percent and national security
31 percent. What a difference a word makes!
Slant No. 2: The Times then asked what voters would "like to hear
the candidates talk more about, the possibility of war with Iraq
or improving the economy." It got the expected outcome: 70 percent
for the economy, 17 percent for Iraq. But that phrasing surely
masks the impatience of voters who favor war with Iraq but are
tired of the endless talk about it. Those who favor action and
oppose more debate would register on the "economy" side of this
biased question.
Slant No. 3: The poll found voters approving of military action
against Iraq by 67 percent to 27 percent. But the Times then
tried to undermine this finding by asking if voters would still
back military action if there were "substantial American military
casualties" (support drops to 54 percent) or "substantial Iraqi
civilian casualties" (support drops to 49 percent).
So where is the question on how support would change if military
action is quick and painless, as in the 1991 war? Or if (again
as in 1991) postwar examination of Iraqi sites revealed that
substantial work on weapons of mass destruction had been going on?
Slant No. 4: Having run doomsday, high-casualty scenarios by the
voters, the poll then asked if Congress is "asking enough questions
about President Bush's policy toward Iraq?" Invited to criticize
Congress, voters do - 51% say that Congress is not asking enough
questions, implying an indecision among Americans that is clearly
not really there.
A truly impartial poll would have included a number of questions
the Times omits, such as:
* If France or Russia vetoes a resolution in the U.N. calling for
an invasion of Iraq, should America and Britain still attack Iraq,
or should they refrain from attacking Iraq?
* Do you think that U.N. inspections will be effective in stopping
Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction?
* Do you approve or disapprove of the attitude of the Democratic
party toward a possible invasion of Iraq?
For decades, responsible journalists refused even to cover
public-opinion polls. Then, in a turnaround, they began to
conduct them and treat their findings as hard news. Now the process
has come full circle: Journalists appear to be using polls to generate
the conclusions they want and to validate their own pre-existing
theses and hypotheses.
When politicians use polling to produce a political outcome, not
to probe what the public genuinely thinks, newspapers condemn it as
"push polling." Is push polling any better done by a liberal newspaper
universally respected for its integrity?