Showing posts with label ABC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ABC. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Pushing the Panic Button
When I was a journalism student in college, one of my professors said something that remains with me today. "Use real quotes whenever you can," this professor said. "People like to read what other people have to say."
Unless the article is clearly a personal opinion piece, he continued, readers don't care what the reporter has to say about anything. They only want the reporter to give them an account that is as complete — and as completely neutral — as possible.
Readers are interested in opinions, of course — which goes a long way, I think, toward explaining the public's fascination with public opinion polling.
Public opinion polling is an emerging science, and I believe many (regretfully, not all, but many) of its practitioners do try to learn from mistakes, theirs and others'. Pollsters in the mid–1930s learned from the Literary Digest's mistakes when the Digest predicted that Franklin D. Roosevelt would lose his bid for re–election in 1936 (primarily car and/or home telephone owners were polled, and those were two things that only the affluent could afford during the Great Depression, so the poll was skewed ).
Pollsters learned from their experience in 1948 — when Dewey defeated Truman — that, if you decide a race is a foregone conclusion and stop polling two weeks before the election, you do so at your own peril.
That kind of stuff seems like common sense today, but there was a time when it was not obvious. I honestly believe most pollsters really do want to be right so they try to make adjustments that will improve the efficiency of their polling.
It is still important to remember that all polls are not conducted equally. You need to know who is behind a poll and whether that person or group has a reputation for leaning to one side or the other. You need to know how questions are worded — even the slightest variation can affect the results, and some pollsters do choose certain words that are likely to get the kind of response they want.
(For such people, I suppose, a good thesaurus is the most valuable professional investment they can make.)
Those are issues that have affected polling all along, but new issues always crop up. For example, American law prevents pollsters from calling phone owners who will be charged simply for answering the call so people whose only phone is a cell phone will be underrepresented — and that affects certain demographic groups (the young, the poor, etc.) more than others.
That's the thing about polling. It's a work in progress.
Personally, I tend to favor Gallup. Gallup has been around much longer, and it has more credibility than the others, more of a reputation for neutrality.
But I pay attention to the others as well. Even if they have a bias of some kind, they can still tell you things about the public mood.
Having said that, I think there are a lot of messages coming from two polls that have come out in recent days — particularly the Washington Post/ABC News poll but also the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
As usual, though, the two sides are only interested in hearing what they want to hear — or reacting (perhaps overreacting is the better word) to results that seem to jeopardize their agenda.
Well, here we are, six months before the midterm elections, and there is a lot in the Washington Post/ABC News poll to worry members of the president's party, especially those who will be on the ballot this year. After all, the Washington Post and ABC News have been friendly to the administration.
By and large, Barack Obama's agenda is the Democratic Party's agenda. That is usually the case with an incumbent president. His party is his army. It takes its marching orders from him. So, even though the president's name will not be on the ballot in the sixth year of his presidency, he still hovers over this election like a Shakespearean ghost. His approval will have a huge influence on the outcome — and, historically, sixth–year midterms have not been kind to presidents.
Dan Balz and Peyton Craighill of the Washington Post observe that Obama's current approval rating is the lowest it has been since the Post began measuring it early in his presidency — 41%. That was Harry Truman's approval rating in May 1950; that November, Truman's approval was unchanged, and his party lost 29 House seats and six Senate seats.
Truman's successor, Republican Dwight Eisenhower, is the only postwar president whose approval clearly went up between May and late October in his sixth year (from 52% to 57%), but his party lost 48 House seats and 13 Senate seats.
Since the end of World War II, there have been seven presidents (or presidential teams) who faced a sixth–year midterm. In almost every case, their approval in spring of the midterm year was higher than their approval shortly before the election in November.
And only Bill Clinton, whose approval ratings were in the 60s in his sixth–year midterm, avoided losing ground in Congress, thanks primarily to the backlash over the Republicans' attempt to remove him from office.
The Washington Post/ABC News poll indicates there are a number of areas where work needs to be done.
Balz and Craighill speculate that Obamacare will be a major issue, as it almost certainly will. A plurality in the Washington Post/ABC News poll opposes Obamacare. Nearly 60% of respondents say Obamacare is raising health care costs.
But that isn't the only thing that has Democrats pushing the panic button.
Balz and Craighill also write that "[p]essimism about the economy also persists, with more than seven in 10 describing the economy in negative terms. Public attitudes about the future of the economy are anything but rosy. Just 28 percent say they think the economy is getting better, while 36 percent say it is getting worse and 35 percent say it's staying the same."
Part of that, I am sure, has to do with the increased costs of health care, but it also has to do with the recovery, which has been as tepid as a recovery can be.
Two–thirds of the poll's respondents say the country is going in the wrong direction — an ominous conclusion for a sixth–year incumbent's constituents to reach.
Strategists for both parties are certainly keeping an eye on the 2016 races for the party nominations, which is addressed in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. That poll found that nearly 70% of respondents don't want either Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton to be the next president.
The news in that poll was slightly better for Obama — it showed his approval rating at 44%, but that isn't very encouraging. It is still lower than Obama's rating at this point in 2010.
Perhaps we'll get a better idea of how the recovery is coming along when the latest jobless report comes out on Friday.
Labels:
ABC,
Democrats,
Gallup,
midterms,
NBC News,
opinion poll,
Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Priorities
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
U.S. Constitution
Article II, Section 3
This probably shouldn't surprise me.
But yesterday — the very day that the Labor Department reported that 85,000 more jobs were lost in December and the unemployment rate remained at 10% for the third straight month — it was stated by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs that Barack Obama will not disrupt the plans of TV addicts who want to watch the season premiere of Lost by scheduling his State of the Union address for that night.
Now, I know my regular readers probably get tired of hearing me talk about unemployment, even though it affects me directly and I have been waiting for nearly a year for this president to do something — anything — to encourage job creation, so let me briefly recap some of the other matters of concern:
- Security — After being told "the system worked" by an incompetent Homeland Security secretary, we have had two incidents in recent days in which the misbehavior of airline passengers has required fighter jets to escort commercial flights to places that were not their original destinations.
Perhaps it was appropriate — given the apparent obsession over the Lost premiere — that the first incident was sparked by a note from a passenger that referred to Gilligan's Island. - Two wars — We don't hear much more about them than we did during the Bush administration, but America still has troops fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, they have combined to suck more than $950 billion from our economy — and we will continue to squander money overseas until our troops are withdrawn. Supposedly, that will happen during Obama's term in office, but aren't we entitled to an update on our progress?
- State budgets — New York Times columnist Bob Herbert writes that "[t]he states are in the worst fiscal shape since the Depression." And he's right.
But I think it makes my point without belaboring it.
Let's see a show of hands from those who think a TV show — any TV show — is more important than the state of the union.
Well, I can name at least one person who was concerned enough about it to ask Gibbs about it — ABC correspondent Ann Compton.
ABC, in case you didn't know, is the network that airs Lost.
I guess that tells you all you need to know about the priorities of ABC's news division. And those priorities can be summed up in one word — ratings.
Labels:
ABC,
Bob Herbert,
economy,
Lost,
New York Times,
Obama,
state budget crisis,
State of the Union,
wars
Monday, December 28, 2009
Out of Context
When I was a boy, I remember having a George Carlin album in which he took on the personae of local TV news personalities in one of his routines.
One of the characters Carlin parodied was the sports anchor, who unapologetically told viewers that "I call 'em the way I see 'em ... and, if I don't see 'em, I make 'em up!"
I've been thinking about that comedy routine as I've been reading about the Christmas Day incident in which a man allegedly attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet bound for Detroit and the responses of officials — one official in particular.Clearly this is a deadly serious matter. Nothing even remotely funny about it — except, perhaps, for how it's been handled. And that wasn't especially funny.
Given what America has been through in this decade because of terrorism, this kind of situation calls for complete candor on the part of our leaders.
But candor is the last thing we've been getting from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Instead, what we've been getting is self–serving nonsense that appears to assume that the American people are a bunch of idiots who will believe anything they are told.
Well, I can't speak for 300 million Americans. But I don't think of myself as an idiot.
In fact, I feel my intelligence was insulted when Napolitano took to the airwaves to proclaim, as she did yesterday, that "the system worked."
The truth is, the system didn't work. Officials had been alerted that the suspect — whose name is so long and has so many syllables that it will never be the kind of name that just rolls off the tongue and is instantly recognizable and, therefore, I see nothing to be gained from entering it here (besides, he's likely to be in prison for the rest of my natural life, anyway) — had developed extreme religious views and may have been in Yemen. The informant was the man's father.
In spite of this, the man's visa to enter the United States was still good. Apparently, his name was added to a computerized watch list — but not to a no–fly list, so he encountered no resistance when he bought the ticket from Amsterdam to Detroit.
Now, I understand that most of the homeland security policies and procedures were already in place when Napolitano took office. And I realize that the P.R. function of her job is important — after all, if another 9/11 occurs, someone will have to go in front of the cameras and urge Americans to keep making trips to Disneyland so the terrorists don't win.
(Frankly, I just don't see Barack Obama performing that George W. Bush–like task. It is much more plausible that he would want a Cabinet member to shill for the travel industry in such a situation. Of course, I guess that presupposes that the economy will improve enough before the next 9/11 that the travel industry could be hurt seriously enough to pose a threat to the economic recovery — assuming, once again, that a recovery gets under way before the next 9/11. But I digress.)
But her claim that the system worked was ludicrous.
What worked? The plot was foiled because the suspect was subdued by the other passengers and the bomb's trigger mechanism let him down. What role did the "system" play? None that I can see.
Then, when she had to do some fast backpedaling on the morning shows, Napolitano gambled that she could get away with blaming others. Her words, she said, had been taken out of context.
She lost that gamble.
At this point, let me say that there are times when I believe computers and the digital age have given the bad guys an unfair advantage. But the gods manage to compensate for that sometimes. And, when Napolitano said her words had been taken out of context, I simply paid a visit to ABC's website and looked at the transcript for "This Week."
I wanted to see what she said that had been taken out of context. Here is what she said:
"Well, I think, first of all, we are investigating, as always, going backwards to see what happened and when, who knew what and when. But here — I think it's important for the public to know, there are different types of databases.
"And there were simply, throughout the law enforcement community, never information that would put this individual on a no–fly list or a selectee list. So that's number one.
"Number two, I think the important thing to recognize here is that, once this incident occurred, everything happened that should have. The passengers reacted correctly, the crew reacted correctly, within an hour to 90 minutes, all 128 flights in the air had been notified. And those flights already had taken mitigation measures on the off–chance that there was somebody else also flying with some sort of destructive intent.
"So the system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days."
Now, "selectee list" is one of those bureaucratic phrases that could mean a lot of things. I think, for example, it could be synonymous with "watch list," but it's hard to tell.
Even if it isn't, though, here is a point that is worth remembering: While the Transportation Security Administration and the airlines do not publicize the criteria they use, some criteria are known, including a tendency to "flag" individuals who pay cash for their tickets, which the suspect did.
If the warning from the suspect's own father had not been enough for the homeland security people, the fact that he paid cash for his transatlantic ticket should have been a violation of their known standards.
On that basis alone, shouldn't he have been put on a selectee list? According to Napolitano, he was not. Those were her very words on Sunday — the words she now says were taken out of context.
OK. Show me what was taken out of context.
Today, Napolitano conceded the system did not work — but, if she has amended or retracted her claim that her words were taken out of context, I have not heard about it.
Until she does, the impression I get is of a department that is sloppily run by an incompetent administrator.
Labels:
ABC,
homeland security,
Napolitano,
Northwest Airlines,
terrorism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
