Monday, October 30, 2006
Poll Fatigue
With the November Midterm elections fast approaching, it behooves us to better scrutinize the usefulness of polling as a tool to assess popular opinion.
Since the 1936 elections, public-opinion polling has emerged as a mainstay in American politics. Founded on a commitment to provide an accurate snapshot of public opinion, the science of mass polling has been perfected over the decades to discount external factors. Pollsters know well, for example, that approval ratings for Democrats tend to slip on the weekends because young, educated singles, reliably Democratic, are out partying (see Michael Schwartz’s The Opiate of the Electorate). An earthquake in Pakistan, a significant day on Wall Street, or a recent House scandal can likewise distort the findings of a poll. The difficulties in effective polling, in fact, are emblematic of the larger challenge in Social Sciences to subject human behavior to rigorous scientific research.
To cite but one example, a recent poll conducted by the Rasmussen Reports shows Bob Corker (R) leading his Democratic opponent, Harold Ford Jr. (D), by a single point in the 2006 Tennessee Senate race. Most experts consider this race a “Toss-Up”.
Some experts, however, suggest that Ford may not enjoy the support the polls imply. David Bositis, a Senior Political Analyst with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, spoke today on NPR’s Morning Edition about a tendency for respondents to rate favorably a black candidate over a white candidate in order to appear socially tolerant. Known as the “Sociable Desirability effect”, some people express an intention to vote for the black candidate while planning to do otherwise. Bositis cited a 1989 exit-poll survey showing Doug Wilder, the gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, held a ten percent lead over his opponent among voters. He won, however, by less than one-half a percent, prompting an automatic recount. Ford’s recent gains in the polls may partially reflect voters’ impressions, not their intentions.
Mass polls are reliable for measuring broad trends in public opinion, but not for specific predictions, especially during an election season.
With the November Midterm elections fast approaching, it behooves us to better scrutinize the usefulness of polling as a tool to assess popular opinion.
Since the 1936 elections, public-opinion polling has emerged as a mainstay in American politics. Founded on a commitment to provide an accurate snapshot of public opinion, the science of mass polling has been perfected over the decades to discount external factors. Pollsters know well, for example, that approval ratings for Democrats tend to slip on the weekends because young, educated singles, reliably Democratic, are out partying (see Michael Schwartz’s The Opiate of the Electorate). An earthquake in Pakistan, a significant day on Wall Street, or a recent House scandal can likewise distort the findings of a poll. The difficulties in effective polling, in fact, are emblematic of the larger challenge in Social Sciences to subject human behavior to rigorous scientific research.
To cite but one example, a recent poll conducted by the Rasmussen Reports shows Bob Corker (R) leading his Democratic opponent, Harold Ford Jr. (D), by a single point in the 2006 Tennessee Senate race. Most experts consider this race a “Toss-Up”.
Some experts, however, suggest that Ford may not enjoy the support the polls imply. David Bositis, a Senior Political Analyst with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, spoke today on NPR’s Morning Edition about a tendency for respondents to rate favorably a black candidate over a white candidate in order to appear socially tolerant. Known as the “Sociable Desirability effect”, some people express an intention to vote for the black candidate while planning to do otherwise. Bositis cited a 1989 exit-poll survey showing Doug Wilder, the gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, held a ten percent lead over his opponent among voters. He won, however, by less than one-half a percent, prompting an automatic recount. Ford’s recent gains in the polls may partially reflect voters’ impressions, not their intentions.
Mass polls are reliable for measuring broad trends in public opinion, but not for specific predictions, especially during an election season.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Orwellian Logic
Prima facie, an apparent contradiction emerges between the Orwell’s Politics of the English Language and his magnum opus, 1984. In Politics, Orwell deplores the use of excessive language that obscures meaning, like dead platitudes or hackneyed metaphors. He advocates a return to a simpler, more direct form of communication. Yet 1984 seems to offer a very different argument. In Orwell’s dystopia, an adulterated form of English, Newspeak, is in the process of permanently replacing Oldspeak as the spoken language of Oceania. Newspeak lacks complex syntax structures and unnecessary vocabulary. Is this not the revolution of language Orwell supported in Politics, albeit in its most extreme application?
With close scrutiny, the reader will discover that Newspeak wreaks the same devastation on the English language as dead platitudes. Both distort the true meaning and intent the speaker. While never perfect, language is a powerful tool for communication, even for abstruse concepts. Modern English fails in this regard because it’s littered with meaningless phrases. Newspeak actually impairs the language to the point where high-level communication is impossible. Either way, the results are the same.
Prima facie, an apparent contradiction emerges between the Orwell’s Politics of the English Language and his magnum opus, 1984. In Politics, Orwell deplores the use of excessive language that obscures meaning, like dead platitudes or hackneyed metaphors. He advocates a return to a simpler, more direct form of communication. Yet 1984 seems to offer a very different argument. In Orwell’s dystopia, an adulterated form of English, Newspeak, is in the process of permanently replacing Oldspeak as the spoken language of Oceania. Newspeak lacks complex syntax structures and unnecessary vocabulary. Is this not the revolution of language Orwell supported in Politics, albeit in its most extreme application?
With close scrutiny, the reader will discover that Newspeak wreaks the same devastation on the English language as dead platitudes. Both distort the true meaning and intent the speaker. While never perfect, language is a powerful tool for communication, even for abstruse concepts. Modern English fails in this regard because it’s littered with meaningless phrases. Newspeak actually impairs the language to the point where high-level communication is impossible. Either way, the results are the same.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Internet for America
As I reflect on the blinding speed of technological proliferation in the past decade, I am reminded of my fifth grade teacher asking the students with personal computers at home to raise their hands. Barely ten hands shot up in the room of over twenty-five. If she were to address the class today, she would have instead asked “how many computers?”, or “how often do you check your Gmail account a day?” Increasingly, the internet has not only entered our daily lives, but it has profoundly shaped our lives, especially for the young.
How have the giants of the corporate media industry, such as Viacom and News Corporation, coped with the emergence of this new medium? Do they feel threatened by the internet’s democratic elements, or excited by new opportunities for growth and profits? Robert McChesney, in his 2004 book The Problem of the Media, contextualizes the Internet Age as simply the most recent in a series of technological epochs. Whether it be the telegraph, the radio, or television, each new medium unleashed a new forum for democratic expression, and all of them were quietly conquered by greedy media corporations with the help of strong support from Washington. Considering such an abysmal track record, will the Internet prove to be the exception that breaks the mold? McChesney maintains unqualified skepticism. With time and lobbying, McChesney argues, the Internet will eventually assimilate the classic mores of mainstream media: uninspiring, low-quality news coverage, hyper-commercialism, and a penchant for the sleazy.
Just as in the early days of radio, starting a website or blog is cheap and easy for most Americans. You’re all reading my blog, and I didn’t pay a cent for it either! Unlike radio broadcasting, the sheer volume of distinct websites is limitless. Monopolization of the Internet is not even a coherent possibility. So why should I fear a corporate takeover of the Internet while the gates to access remain wide open?
The answer is that the Internet cannot erase the challenges of generating an economically viable alternative media outlet. I can start a blog to comment on already existing media, but I cannot create my own news source for public consumption. A true democracy requires informed debate on matters of concern to the republic. Yet as long as news coverage continues to be a costly endeavor, the media giants can still direct the contours of political debate with the way it covers stories and their choice of stories to cover. The relevant quip is “Media can’t tell you what to think, but it can tell you what to think about.”
One solution suggested by economist Dean Baker is the Artistic Freedom Voucher, which allows citizens to divert $100 of their taxes to any nonprofit media outlet. The policy would weaken the corporate stranglehold on media content and invite antagonistic viewpoints in news for the first time in generations
As I reflect on the blinding speed of technological proliferation in the past decade, I am reminded of my fifth grade teacher asking the students with personal computers at home to raise their hands. Barely ten hands shot up in the room of over twenty-five. If she were to address the class today, she would have instead asked “how many computers?”, or “how often do you check your Gmail account a day?” Increasingly, the internet has not only entered our daily lives, but it has profoundly shaped our lives, especially for the young.
How have the giants of the corporate media industry, such as Viacom and News Corporation, coped with the emergence of this new medium? Do they feel threatened by the internet’s democratic elements, or excited by new opportunities for growth and profits? Robert McChesney, in his 2004 book The Problem of the Media, contextualizes the Internet Age as simply the most recent in a series of technological epochs. Whether it be the telegraph, the radio, or television, each new medium unleashed a new forum for democratic expression, and all of them were quietly conquered by greedy media corporations with the help of strong support from Washington. Considering such an abysmal track record, will the Internet prove to be the exception that breaks the mold? McChesney maintains unqualified skepticism. With time and lobbying, McChesney argues, the Internet will eventually assimilate the classic mores of mainstream media: uninspiring, low-quality news coverage, hyper-commercialism, and a penchant for the sleazy.
Just as in the early days of radio, starting a website or blog is cheap and easy for most Americans. You’re all reading my blog, and I didn’t pay a cent for it either! Unlike radio broadcasting, the sheer volume of distinct websites is limitless. Monopolization of the Internet is not even a coherent possibility. So why should I fear a corporate takeover of the Internet while the gates to access remain wide open?
The answer is that the Internet cannot erase the challenges of generating an economically viable alternative media outlet. I can start a blog to comment on already existing media, but I cannot create my own news source for public consumption. A true democracy requires informed debate on matters of concern to the republic. Yet as long as news coverage continues to be a costly endeavor, the media giants can still direct the contours of political debate with the way it covers stories and their choice of stories to cover. The relevant quip is “Media can’t tell you what to think, but it can tell you what to think about.”
One solution suggested by economist Dean Baker is the Artistic Freedom Voucher, which allows citizens to divert $100 of their taxes to any nonprofit media outlet. The policy would weaken the corporate stranglehold on media content and invite antagonistic viewpoints in news for the first time in generations
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Democracy in Peril
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate to choose the latter.”
-Thomas Jefferson
An oft-quoted line from one of America’s founding fathers, yet it still retains much currency today. Jefferson, as well as others, understood the important role newspapers play in the functioning of democratic institutions. Our system of government is predicated on the active involvement and participation of all citizens. In the absence of a watchful eye, government tends to slide into sloth and corruption. At its best, Media can “grease the wheels” by keeping citizens informed and giving them a voice to participate.
Yet recent studies have convincingly demonstrated that today’s Americans are woefully ignorant in basic political knowledge, strangers to the voting booth, and pessimistic about the future. In no small way, the kings of the media industry have contributed to this abysmal state by explicitly manipulating the content of the news to suit their interests. Relaxation of media ownership regulations by the 1980’s has enabled large conglomerates to build vast media empires rivaling the great oil companies of the Gilded Age. In order to maintain and augment their power, these media magnates exert pressure on their editorial staff to cover the news in a way that reflects their pro-business, pro-trade, rightist views. The result is either bland, one-sided news coverage, or no coverage at all. Democracy is in serious peril when ordinary citizens are effectively left out of the political debate.
This summer, a proposed Free Trade Agreement with Peru was signed by President Bush, to be ratified by the House and Senate. The FTA would open Peru's market far more to U.S. goods, which face a weighted average tariff of 9% and much higher on some products. The scant coverage the proposed agreement has received in mainstream media has been, without exception, emphatically supportive. Eric Farnsforth of the Chicago Sun-Times writes that “Unless a program is put in place to bridge the gap between the expiration and implementation of free trade agreements, real damage could be done to U.S. interests.” A Dec. 8th, 2005 article in the Washington Post quotes four free-trade supporters and no opponents. For the Miami Herald, Pablo Bachelet warned that rejection of the FTA with Peru “would not only be a victory for Chávez but a blow to other allies in the hemisphere that aspire to closer ties with Washington.” “Peru’s Path to Prosperity” was the title of an Oct. 11th editorial in the LA Times.
At Congressional committee hearings, the Agreement is hotly contested over it's possible negative impact on organized labor both in Peru and the United States. That debate, however, is noticibly absent from the daily headlines. The opinion of organized labor, once respected as an authoritative voice of working-class America, has been either trivialized or ignored in the Media. Why the change? Because the corporations that own the papers stand to profit greatly from trade liberalization and hence shield the story from the public. The Pew Research Center survey of three hundred journalists released in 2000 found that nearly half of them acknowledged sometimes consciously engaging in self-censorship to serve the commercial interests of their employer or advertisers, and only one-quarter of them stated that this never happened to their knowledge. In the interests of greed, the media has weakened democracy rather than fortifying it.
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate to choose the latter.”
-Thomas Jefferson
An oft-quoted line from one of America’s founding fathers, yet it still retains much currency today. Jefferson, as well as others, understood the important role newspapers play in the functioning of democratic institutions. Our system of government is predicated on the active involvement and participation of all citizens. In the absence of a watchful eye, government tends to slide into sloth and corruption. At its best, Media can “grease the wheels” by keeping citizens informed and giving them a voice to participate.
Yet recent studies have convincingly demonstrated that today’s Americans are woefully ignorant in basic political knowledge, strangers to the voting booth, and pessimistic about the future. In no small way, the kings of the media industry have contributed to this abysmal state by explicitly manipulating the content of the news to suit their interests. Relaxation of media ownership regulations by the 1980’s has enabled large conglomerates to build vast media empires rivaling the great oil companies of the Gilded Age. In order to maintain and augment their power, these media magnates exert pressure on their editorial staff to cover the news in a way that reflects their pro-business, pro-trade, rightist views. The result is either bland, one-sided news coverage, or no coverage at all. Democracy is in serious peril when ordinary citizens are effectively left out of the political debate.
This summer, a proposed Free Trade Agreement with Peru was signed by President Bush, to be ratified by the House and Senate. The FTA would open Peru's market far more to U.S. goods, which face a weighted average tariff of 9% and much higher on some products. The scant coverage the proposed agreement has received in mainstream media has been, without exception, emphatically supportive. Eric Farnsforth of the Chicago Sun-Times writes that “Unless a program is put in place to bridge the gap between the expiration and implementation of free trade agreements, real damage could be done to U.S. interests.” A Dec. 8th, 2005 article in the Washington Post quotes four free-trade supporters and no opponents. For the Miami Herald, Pablo Bachelet warned that rejection of the FTA with Peru “would not only be a victory for Chávez but a blow to other allies in the hemisphere that aspire to closer ties with Washington.” “Peru’s Path to Prosperity” was the title of an Oct. 11th editorial in the LA Times.
At Congressional committee hearings, the Agreement is hotly contested over it's possible negative impact on organized labor both in Peru and the United States. That debate, however, is noticibly absent from the daily headlines. The opinion of organized labor, once respected as an authoritative voice of working-class America, has been either trivialized or ignored in the Media. Why the change? Because the corporations that own the papers stand to profit greatly from trade liberalization and hence shield the story from the public. The Pew Research Center survey of three hundred journalists released in 2000 found that nearly half of them acknowledged sometimes consciously engaging in self-censorship to serve the commercial interests of their employer or advertisers, and only one-quarter of them stated that this never happened to their knowledge. In the interests of greed, the media has weakened democracy rather than fortifying it.
