I have recently returned to posting "Blog Polls" every week on this site. I have had some reluctance in doing it because they are not really scientific polls. It is really misleading to call them polls because it implies that they are random and science based. They are nothing of the sort. I have had some Tweets from folks I respect who have called these "blog polls" crap and I agree...especially if they are represented or understood to be science based random and reliable polls.
WHY BLOG AND MEDIA "POLLS" ARE CRAP
I know the main stream media including major newspapers, radio stations and television websites often to the same misleading techniques as "blog polls." That hardly justifies the activity and does nothing to absolve the misleading label of "poll." These mainstream media "polls" are not scientific or reliable either. Like those on blogs they are at best a relatively unreliable representation of what some readers might think. We have no idea of the nature and composition of the readership or the respondents in either case.
These "polls" can even be hijacked by groups who what to create an impression of reality that is also misleading by pushing one group or another to flood the "poll" with answers that serves their preferences or purposes. The recent question of who should hold the balance of power if we have a minority Alberta government is perhaps an example of a push by a group to influence results. I don't know but have suspicions. Many of my readers are Alberta Party members and many more are Alberta Party curious so it is no surprise that this new party is the dominant choice. I note a key strategist of the Alberta NDP recently criticized my blog polls Twitter and all of a sudden there is a surge in NDP support for holding the balance of power. I think this is an example of starting the conversation so long as people see that the survey results are only useful for that purpose and not conclusive of anything.
This is just a signal to readers to use their critical thinking skills and read these surveys like they would horoscopes. Treat them with the same degree of authenticity. These so-called "polls" are to random sampling opinion surveys as Dr. Phil is to psychology...infotainment at worst and conversation starters at best.
SCIENCE BASED POLLING UNDER PRESSURE TOO
Opinion polling as a science has come under serious credibility pressures recently too. This is because the tried and true techniques used in the past to generate a random representative sampling has reliability problems with the rise of cell phones as virtually the exclusive connectivity link of a younger generation and the difficulty to connect to them skews the data. The move towards self-selecting volunteers to register with pollsters who allegedly represent a demographic or a region is suspect too because the more indifferent or disengaged opinions are not likely to be canvasses. Then we have caller ID that allows people to filter out unwanted calls or unknown callers. That again undermines true randomness. Then we have the fact that as many as 20 calls have to be made before someone will take the call and invest the time to respond to a phone survey. How randomly representative is the data collected with that kind of randomness? There are "solutions" but they are not perfect either. But that is another issue for another post some other time.
DOES HARPER HATE EVIDENCE MORE THAN LIBERALS?
With the Harper government destroying the Canada Census we will not longer have a randomly selected scientifically reliable source of crucial information on Canadians after 2006. The ignorance of that policy decision will ensure that public policy design in the future will be a crap shoot that will inevitably result in crap public policy. I believe that is the ultimate political goal here. The fundamentalist anti-intellectual underpinnings of the Reform roots of the Harper government want to design failure into government so it can be replaced by Darwinian market forces in all cases. I mention this to show that even quality scientific polling is being undermined by a political ideology that says it is OK for faith to trump facts. Evidence is tough to rebut so the Reformatory Harper government passes policy to ensure we don't have facts in the first place. That is even more dangerous to democracy than silly unscientific "blog polls."
IT'S ABOUT STARTING THE CONVERSATIONS
I think the questions posed in a "blog poll" will only be conversation starters in and amongst the readers of that blog in comments, social media and off-line IRL (in real life). There is no reliable value to be attributed to the responses and folks have to know that. I will continue to put questions to my readers for response but I will not call them "Blog Polls" any more. I will call them "Burning Questions" from now. I hope these Burning Questions continue to serve the purpose to engage citizens in the political culture of our times. I hope they trigger real conversations in communities, between friends and amongst co-workers and even within families to help focus attention on the political issues and public policy concerns that are shaping our times.
If that is the case, I believe they are worth keeping. If you have a Burning Question you want me to pose, email it to me.
*** Sorry about the length, this finds its basis in a blog that I'm currently working on) ***
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly; and am also quite happy that I no longer represent the only person with whom I am at least a bit acquainted that realizes the significance of the new voluntary nature of the census long form. I realise that this was a post about polls/"burning questions" (they might not give accurate or scientific results, but they can often provide insight in regards to the mindset of a readership) - but I think that the census was actually the most important topic you spoke about (7 months ago it was the last straw leading me to try to found my own federal level party).
People often think that I'm "worrying about things that no one else cares about" when I talk about public apathy and the death of the Canadian democracy. Some go so far as to say that the public isn't apathetic, at all. However, what I will say is this:
Whether through our own motivation or circumstance, each and every one of us had a reason to visit this website on this day. Now, imagine if you will your own social network (those with whom you have the strongest bonds because you interact most often, and those with whom you are simply acquainted and do not interact regularly). Think about all of those people in terms of what Ken mentioned about perhaps 1 in 20 phone calls being answered, or how many have contacted their elected representatives - or even voted. The point is that you might know 1000 and many of those you interact with online might have opinions and take action - but odds are that these aren't all people that you've always known - you've likely crossed paths while investigating your interests (perhaps politics). Furthermore, based on your interests you'll likely see many of the same names and people at various websites or events that you visit - but what are the other 19 (to use Ken's numbers) doing?
We're apathetic and growing more so - in many ways due to issues like literacy, cultural relativism, constancy of media environments (that either dictate their own forms of propaganda or have access to public information limited so that they have no choice. This will go unnoticed by most.
Couple this with the limiting of our civil rights and fundamental freedoms - those things that allow each person to be an individual, form our own opinions and then vote to ensure that our opinion is represented (even when we lose, providing feedback) - essentially the things that allow us to participate in a democracy that is both by the people and for the people. This has been done by way of legislation like the Public Safety & Anti-Terrorism (PSAT) initiatives, creating fear over privacy and implementing FOIP legislation (all of which lead to the changes to the long form of the census).
This might not mean much to the 19/20 (again using Ken's example numbers) that are already apathetic - but what about those of us who still wish to put our rights & freedoms to use for what they were really intended? What will we do in the case where our Government would prefer to silence our opinions; and, rather than demand information about how the public is doing in their personal lives - would prefer to just govern as they see fit?
Worse yet, it has been quite some time in Canada since a majority Government was elected. Therefore, the Conservatives have had support from other parties/people in the House to pass all of it. These are the same individuals who stand on the steps of Parliament after passing a Bill and then criticise the Conservatives for passing it. So who can we trust in terms of those we've elected to represent us?
It is time, once again, to get off the bench and into the game Canada. Even if that means participating in the odd phone survey!
The trouble with blog polls, or any kind of poll where select groups can jam the process, being used by the media especially TV News is that the results are then posted and reported by the news team. This gives a message and sound bite that people remember. The results can and do influence thinking. People do not remember where they heard a "fact" but may remember the content.
ReplyDeleteIn this regard these 'polls" are more than just 'crap" but can be dangerous to informed decision making. I believethey may actually be harmful to the social fabric.
I agree Bruce - that is why these non-scientific approaches should not be called "polls" at all. It gives them unwarranted credence and misleads the public as to veracity.
ReplyDeleteMy reference from now on will be to Burning Questions to spark conversation and not referencing the term "poll" at all.