Polling, Sh-polling

The mania for polling says more the about the interests of the media than it does about the views of the public.  They are used to inflate clicks on websites, sell air time, bloat premium subscriptions, peddle print copies, and cater to biases in newsrooms. They are also used in the manner of an arsonist to destroy clear thinking.  The particulars of an issue get sabotaged in a frenzy over polls.  All of sudden, facts are less and less relevant.

The media fixation is a manifestation of the old newsroom maxim: If it bleeds, it leads.  In the case of the impeachment talk, the hemorrhage is the bringing low of a prominent person by making news of a series of questions thrust to a random sample of people who may be poorly informed, uninterested, caught up in the hysteria of the moment, and/or willing to answer flippantly.  The thing may be scientifically sound but still be rubbish.

I say this not in regards to any current event, such as the current dust-up over impeachment. Polling has always bugged me.  Why?  Basics first.  The general public isn’t as obsessed with the news as those who are employed to exploit it for fame and reward.  As potential voters, most people don’t take something seriously till they have something serious to do, like cast a ballot.  Till then, they are at the mercy of media hype while, at the same time, they have more pressing concerns at home, like getting by in the world.

Secondly, since polls are of people with more important and immediate burdens, they are snapshots of loosely formed opinions.  It’s for this reason that election polls get more accurate on the state of play as election day arrives.  The person has a crashing deadline, an election, to motivate more thoughtful consideration.  It’s like a student who studies more intensely a day or two before a test.

So, what do the polls indicate about the impeachment of Trump?  Nothing much, other than a mass of rough-hewn opinions-of-the-moment.

The lesson for the public is clear: Watch the facts; ignore the polls.

RogerG

Comments

comments