A Certain Lack of Objectivity
An NBC reporter’s confession:
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
-
Join PG Facebook Group
Wow. Guess reporters want to be cool too.
Kreiz: yes, but I think it’s quite a big problem actually.
I was agog and not excusing or minimizing it, M. (My comment intended of sarcasm). It’s a serious problem. Too many reporters see themselves as part of the story, part of the action. Very troubling.
I don’t know what they’re teaching in J school these days- but this isn’t as it should be. Journalists are, above all else, objective observers. When they become advocates, we’re in trouble.
I’m also thinking that everyone needs to step back from the pre-election polling results and quit calling elections. It’s a bad practice, focused on the horserace, not on subtance. We all do it.
Yes, I’m starting to think that as well, which is why I’m pointing out more and more that the races are wide open, etc.
That’s what they’re taught here. I wonder what they say about that in the US these days.
The temptation to read polling tea leaves is enormous- in fairness, polls are often accurate, and may reflect legitimate trending. But they’re snapshot. More importantly, the temptation leads right into the horserace- and away from substantance.
You’re right, Michael- there are very competitive races going on in both parties. We need to pay attention, listen and think. And above all, exercise patience- a wonderful virtue.
That’s what they’re taught here. I wonder what they say about that in the US these days.
Let me give you two chilling quotes from a couple of fellow students I talked too.
One was a policeman coming back for some extra classroom work. "I am the law."
I said dont you mean you enforce the law? "No when I am riding in my squad car I am the law."
A second was from a senior Journalism major. I was actually doing a paper on the different professions that deal exclusively with life altering events.
"I determine what is news. I make the news what it is."
What do you mean exactly.
"I mean that I can look at two events and have to decide which the people would be more interested in and report on the one that will stir the most interest."
Obama has stirred the most interest. You draw your conclusions from this.
Yes, very true.
"I make the news". Argh. I was impressed with the long Brokaw quote extolling patience- waiting for the voter results. To be fair, the media occasionally learns lessons. After 2000, they quit giving exit poll results until polls closed- a good development. Perhaps now they’ll be more skeptical of pre election polls. I figure part of the problem stems from the accuracy of polling: the 04 and 08 pre election polling results were pretty accurate, so the media got comfortable with polls. It’ll swing the other way for a while at least. :)
I did another research project with three other fellow students. In this project we pooled data from people who volunteered information which they gave to exit polls after voting. And we also pooled data in which other people volunteered to share their answers with pre election polling that took place primarily via telephone.
Although the data was not scientific and we purposely did not follow scientific control grouping and such, the point of our pool was not to gather scientific data but to gather voter attitudes toward polling, both pre and post election.
What we discovered was that 32 percent of the respondents to pre polling data who promised to vote. Did not. Those that did vote 16 percent voted for someone other then what they indicated they would vote for in the original poll.
Exit polling was even more revealing. 21 percent felt that their vote was sacred and that those asking who they voted for was violating their constitutional rights to a secret ballot. 18 percent flat out lied about who they voted for.
18 percent does not indicate a lot but in a close election if the wrong 18 percent are asked then you will end up with skewed results. Florida in 2000 is one example and quite clearly New Hampshire is another.
For example the conclusion that we reached is that a random sampling of exit polling from any district is not scientific and could not be construed as such because there are no controls. Its a question which might have several answers and a question in which many respondents do not feel compelled to be honest because their is nothing that will hold them accountable.
Polling is inaccurate at best and as more and more of it is forced down voters throats the pressures to be just deceitful for many varying reasons becomes even more pronounced.
People are infatuated with polls but as can be seen in the Hillary Clinton Camp the exit polling they were doing at 5 pm convinced them they were going to lose. Their own polling was wrong. Everyones was wrong.
How can that be. I explained above. People simply are lying to the pollsters and laughing to their cars about it.