The Obsessive-Dismissive tendencies of People & Polls
While it is commonly accepted that unscientific polling does not yield any valid results and is strictly for entertainment purposes, people’s opinion of the validity of professionally done scientific polling has hardly reached consensus. In fact, there is much individual ambivalence over the matter. Many people, on the one hand, are very cynical, verbally acknowledging the notorious inconclusiveness of poll results but at the same time seem to be infatuated with what the polls seem to indicate/predict. This holds particularly true with politicians, for whom public opinion is vital (think President Bush- claiming to have no faith in the authenticity of polls, but on the other hand having someone like Karl Rove around who tends have a “voracious appetite” for poll results.)

What is it about polls that makes them so controversial?

Take the following poll report:
"Democrats Hold Double Digit Lead in Competitive Districts. "


Let us first examine a series of facts, such as who conducted the poll, who it was sponsored by, why and how and when was this poll taken.

People-press poll reports that Democrats hold a double digit lead in competitive districts. Pew Research Center, an independent opinion research group, part of Princeton Research Associates is sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Surveys are one of the seven projects that make up the Research Center with the purpose of evaluating ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research; the information produced is available at no charge.
Princeton Research Associates conducted this poll between October 17-22, 2006 on 2,006 adults, 18 years or older. The Associates attests with 95% confidence, that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, and 3 % based on registered voters.
This is standard and acceptable in terms of margin of error, and so is a 95% confidence level and the organization behind the poll seems hardly biased or in it for partisan purposes. If this poll is accurate, it could suggest a number of very valuable pieces of information and with about a week to go to the midterm elections, knowing who is going to win the election is very significant to political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations.

However, even if a poll is conducted scientifically it is only valid to a certain extent. Any given poll can be off by fifteen percent, and one has no way of knowing of this particular poll is part of that 5% an dis producing highly inaccurate results. In addition, polls can only be used to reflect large shifts in public opinion, like double digit changes, but by no means capable of measuring the tiny nuances and subtle changes among potential voters. These seemingly small percentages can be highly significant when measuring public opinion with issues that the nation tends to be close to equally split upon- although here it is not the case-it would then be almost impossible to accurately predict the actual state of public opinion. However, poll results don’t usually provide this valuable piece of information.
Public opinion also tends to highly volatile but as volatile as public opinion can be a lot of the fluctuations can be attributed to the way a specific poll is conducted.
For instance, the time of day, the days of the weeks are seemingly innocuous factors but they can create huge discrepancies between one poll results. (Thursday through Saturday is when young adults tend to be out partying or clubbing, and recent trends indicate they tend to vote Democratic.) With any given poll, no matter how scientific there are always barriers taht can obscure results. Factors such as language comprehension, the tendency of people not to respond they don’t know, and the fact that most people don’t have a real opinion on a given issue(and actually may form their opinion based on the way the question was asked) aren't really taken into account. There is an element of people wanting to provide the more “popular” answer, and not professing support for a losing candidate.
Even if public opinion was reflected upon in the poll, it is by no means indicative what the voting results will be. Many pollsters have different definitions of “likely voters” and even if it was more standardized they can still never accurately predict who will vote. A series of factors varying from weather conditions and other random factors can have an enormous impact on people’s individual decision whether to vote or not. In addition newly registered voters must be accounted for in the pollster’s assessment of “likely voters” but it is unclear who from the registered 18-21 age group is actually going to vote. There is also evidence of growing voter cynicism; this overall dissatisfaction may stem from a series of factors such as the pervasiveness of ridiculous campaign ads, negative media coverage, too much mention of scandals and corruption etc, and so although they may have professed support for a particular party or candidate they may end up staying home. Another important thing to note is that in this poll, people are being asked to profess their support for a one party over another, not for a specific candidate. Ever heard of the notorious love-hate relationship people have with congress? So while they may be strongly dissatisfied with a party overall, they may vote for the individual candidate anyway.
So in reality you can’t accurately conclude much from a poll. It is hardly a systematic and scientific way of attaining information, and in order really draw a valid conclusion the evidence must be absolutely precise. So, the only thing you can really conclude from this poll, is that the two thousand people or more who were polled responded in a way that seems to favor the Democratic party.

The Ruthless Butchering of the English Language…

Did anyone notice the oxymoron in my title? "Ruthless butchering of the English lanuage" is just the kind of prose that George Orwell would denounce. He talks about the dead metaphors and how the “newly invented metaphor assist thought by evoking a visual image” (read George Orwell's "Politics and Speech", 1946 in full) Orwell criticizes different aspects that he feels are being misused within the English language, and how overall the language is in a decadent state.

“The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness” I couldn’t agree more with the statement. Being able to effectively manipulate the English language seems to be a notorious but essential characteristic of a politician. Knowing how to effectively deliver a speech, respond to questions in a way that is least revealing, say a lot but about nothing, take a stand on highly controversial issue while sound neutral, as not to ostracize any segment of supporters, know how to effectively conjure images in people’s minds, and emotionally stir them so they will share the speaker’s passion or zeal… for a politician these skills are priceless. Sadly, the public is often swayed people by the eloquent, colorful speeches that say nothing but are replete with vivid metaphors and elegant rhetoric. A miscalculation, a careless phrasing or a poor choice of words can prove catastrophic for someone in a leadership position.
Bush made a serious error in a statement in 2003. To quote from USA Today “There are some who feel that the the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." He hit big trouble when he underestimated the potential of terrorism activity and the success they’d have in effectively killing so many Americans troops. Such are the dangers of speech. “White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush's combative tone was not meant to invite attacks on Americans.”I think what the president was expressing there is his confidence in the men and women of the military to handle the military mission they still remain in the middle of," Fleischer said.
But Bush was criticized as "irresponsible and insightful." …"I am shaking my head in disbelief," Lautenberg said. "When I served in the Army in Europe during World War II, I never heard any military commander — let alone the commander in chief — invite enemies to attack U.S. troops."
Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said, "I have a message for the president: enough of the phony, macho rhetoric

Government officials place strong emphasis on choice words particularly when they are trying to gain support of a cause effectively.

“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable.”…“Islamic Fascism” sound familiar? “Weapons of mass destruction”, “bring freedom and democracy” are additional phrases coined by this government to in attempt to build a network of support for an unpopular war. It is government propaganda. Perhaps it is a more subtle method, but it is a highly effective; the phrases coined by the government tend to stick around for a long time.

“Democracy…ooo pick me!", Pres. of Venezuela (What he really meant to say)

“It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning.”(-George Orwell)

Written over fifty years ago but oh so relevant today; at an era when the world has been overly simplified and depicted in shades of black and white with very little grey, countries are determined to be categorized under the “good” rather than the “evil”, and have their regime called a “democracy” rather than a “tyranny”. Regimes know that being characterized with these negative terminologies will alienate other countries and make it difficult for them to be successful in foreign policy making.
The President of Venezuela in an interview with TIME magazine actually tried to stick in the word democracy and make the case for his having a tolerable regime. He emphasized his allowance of voiced government opposition and the prevalence of it in his country. The humor of associating democracy with his regime is immense, but yet attempting to cast his regime in a better light he managed to stick the word "democracy" into his rhetoric.

Mainstream Media and New Media: Is there a difference?
The mainstream media is plagued with a series of issues such as hyper commercialism, dominating corporate powers, and a lack of healthy competition. Rather than these problems being solely based on the profit-driven nature of the market system, the current nature of the media market can be seen as a result of explicit government polices, regulations and subsidies that intertwine with corporate interests. This multitude of problems engulfing the media institution is not dealt with adequately by the government sponsored agency: the FCC. Many people would like to see significant changes implemented in the media system, if only this notion was an economic and political possibility.
Changes in media communications are constantly evolving, as technological innovations are being formed to feed the increasingly great demand for advancements for communication technologies within the US military. Thus the US government provides a strong innovative incentive since it the primary market for developments. Eventually it turns over to the new designs to the free market and allowing for commercial interests. The discovery of radio broadcasting, invention of the Internet and design of satellite communication were all sponsored by the US government.
Many have predicted that ultimately these new technologies will eliminate the major problems that engulf the modem media system, such as media ownership, and ultimately it will be the long term answer to the political and commercial issues permeating mainstream media
Clearly, the emergence of the Internet as a primary means of gathering news and information will have an effect upon journalism and entertainment, but whether the idea of it being independent of the series of issues plaguing the media system, is overly optimistic. Internet and technologies seem to be developing to benefit corporate interests as government policies to decide issues such as the role and nature of advertising, privacy protection, and application of copyright laws, tend to be very susceptible to these commercial pressures and the growing and merging of the institutions will only intensify its susceptibility.

The Internet allows large quantities of information to be delivered instantaneously, at low cost to people around the world. This makes it an appealing medium for advertisers, who seek to target the greatest number of people, in the shortest amount of time, and for the lowest cost. Campaign ads for government officials, has even caught onto the internet, not underestimating the prominence of facebook.com in a college student’s life. Congressional campaigners in 2006 election are actually using the WebPages to advertise and obtain support in the social cyber world.
Laws and standards have been set and developed by the government to govern the commercial world in the internet, and “protect” the consumer (see Advertising and Marketing on the Internet: Rules of the Road) But the pervasiveness of spam, popups, and viruses is evidence of the difficulties the government encounters in effectively policing the content of the internet traffic.
Unfortunately the idea of the Internet began a purged, cleansified and commercial free safe haven seems utopian at best. What is displayed onscreen at main internet sites such as Yahoo, Google, Amazon, or EBay is heavily planned and orchestrated by commercial interests. As long as material pursuits continue to exist and profit incentives remain, advertising revenues will be indispensable to companies and organizations on the Internet
However, one important distinction between the New Media and Mainstream media, is the News Media-the Internet provides endless sources of news and information, not allowing for the dominance of one particular news industry; conservatives, liberal, radicals and other political groups benefit from the variety of information available. In this aspect the Internet is unprecedented and extremely beneficial in providing information for special interest groups and allowing for the allowing existence of organizations that would otherwise be nonexistent in mainstream media because of their lack of capital.

(connects to previous post)

Republicans: Hold Your Nose and Vote…

Republicans are suffering the greatest repercussions as they have come across as hypocritical individuals, championing themselves as the party in favor of family values and yet failing to adequately deal with scandals within their own party. The timing of this incident, combined with the backdrop of the disaster of the war in Iraq doesn’t make the future look to bright for Republicans. Maybe they should be catering the following message: hold your nose and vote.
The media has been treating the Mark Foley sex scandal as the single underlying factor in this election. While I do not wish to condone the matter, or try to mitigate it, I think that it’s important that citizens focus on selecting candidates who will promote values that they support in legislation on defense, tax cuts, the environment, economy etc, and not allow this one incident to undermine the eligibility of all Republican candidates. Selecting another party’s candidate on their basis of the claim of a “higher standard of morality and ethics” is naive. Democrats have had their share of scandals and corruption, and have not necessarily dealt with them any better. Representative Gerry E. Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts who became embroiled in a sex scandal is just one example.
Anyone with a basic superficial glance should be able to gather that the Democrats are using this “clean up the senate” business as a political gamble to win congressional majority and not necessarily because their party is going to be any “cleaner”.
Thus my point here isn’t to defend the Republican Party, just to say that crooked politicians come in all sizes, shapes and forms. Congress is overall corrupt and sleazy, and switching parties isn’t going provide any long term solution.

Due to blog troubleshooting I’ve encountered with the following post, it may be slightly outdated:

Recent Headlines: Evidence of more Tabloid Journalism or of US Congress Getting Sleazier?

Leighly notes in Mass Media and Politics that while coverage of Congress has decreased over the past decade, the news that is mentioned has become increasingly more negative. She presents a study, published by S. Robert Lichter and Daniel R Amundson that indicated a 12% increase in negative coverage of both parties in Congress between the years 1972 and 1994.
Leighly speculates that the negative shift of congressional news coverage either reflects substantial changes of behavior within members of Congress, or is due to a shift in the way “newsworthiness” is being determined by media industries. Originally, upon contemplating this issue, I favored the former explanation, as it that seemed more in line with the profit seeking model, and the latter explanation I saw as weak since corruption has plagued Congress since the dawn of its existence.
Unfortunately, there is an undeniable pervasive effect of tabloid journalism. The general focus of the media on sex, scandal and corruption, translates into extensive coverage of the corruption and scandals that occur in Congress, and a lack of sufficient coverage over significant developments in legislation or of important issues that are being deliberated. Thus, by presenting only the headlines that would receive the most attention, comes the consequence of widespread ignorance of politics among citizens, typically more familiar with the names of the animated Simpson family than the names of the Supreme Court Justices.
During elections when educating the public is especially pertinent, as I mentioned in my previous blog, the media’s focus is on the “game” or “horserace”, who is ahead or behind in the logistics and strategy, up or down in the polls and providing completely unsubstantial and useless information that not only fails to aid voters in their choosing a candidate, but results in greater voter cynicism and less turnout on election day. (See how the coverage of the congressional race has shifted even more towards the “game” and “horserace” after the Foley sex scandal: at USATODAY.com - Race for Senate control tightens, and in The NY Times In House Races, More G.O.P. Seats Seen at Risk as well as The Fix -- Washington post,)

At the same time as the media seems to fail in educating citizens of essential political fact, its recent focus on the scandals and allegation against congressmen have brought to light the sordid state our government it is in. Overall, rather than congress being portrayed as the main deliberation policymaking body of the federal government that it has been conveyed as a swamp that houses sleazy corrupt individuals, power and money hungry, constantly engaged in bolstering their popularity, using whatever means necessary to achieve their political goals. Sadly, this portrayal reflects reality; pedophiles, hypocrites, liars, acrimonious racists, swindlers, and embezzlers just name a few. Therefore, we cannot only cite journalistic tendencies to account for the increasingly negative coverage of Congress.
The Mark Foley incident has been especially grotesque, and the availability of web technology has made the story especially powerful with Bryan Ross’s broadcasting (see ABC News clip) actual conversations that took place between the Senator and a male page, via instant message and as Newsweek puts it, “while congressmen caught in sex scandal is nothing new, the way the story broke shows the power of web technology to influence politics”
However, the amount of corruption that is plaguing our Senate and House lately seems a bit over the top and even unprecedented. The Mark Foley scandal has left many more cynical of our legislative body than ever. The people running our country, our Federal government lack basic morals and ethics.