Patterico's Pontifications

7/3/2005

L.A. Times: We Mention Only the Negative Polls

Filed under: Dog Trainer,War — Patterico @ 11:05 am



The other day, the L.A. Times told us that Bush’s recent speech on Iraq was “part of a major weeklong public relations offensive by an administration struggling to bolster sagging support”; that “polls have shown that many others doubt that the effort to install a stable new government in Iraq will protect the United States”; and that “[p]olls have been indicating support for the war is at its lowest level since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.”

And that was in one article alone.

Apparently, the editors considered negative polls a significant enough issue to mention three times in one story. Discussing the story, I noted:

Interesting that, where the L.A. Times sees “sagging support,” the Washington Post finds that “a majority of Americans — 53 percent — now say they are optimistic about the situation in Iraq, up seven points from December.” And where the L.A. Times says “polls have shown that many others doubt that the effort to install a stable new government in Iraq will protect the United States,” the recent Washington Post poll says:

A narrow majority — 52 percent — believes that the war has contributed to the long-term security of the United States, a five-point increase from earlier this month.

It’s all in the spin, baby.

Since then, a new Gallup poll has emerged showing still more positives for Bush. Captain Ed recently reported:

Gallup announced yesterday that it had taken a snap poll after the speech given by George Bush on the war in Iraq from Fort Bragg. The poll showed some movement bolstering support for the war. In fact, it showed Bush picking up ten points on whether we are winning in Iraq (up to 54%), twelve points on keeping troops in Iraq until the situation improves as opposed to setting an exit date for their evacuation (now at 70%/25%), and seven points on whether Bush has a clear plan for handling the war in Iraq (up to 63%/35%).

I have searched the L.A. Times in vain for any mention of either the Washington Post poll or the most recent Gallup poll. Perhaps they were reported and I am just missing them? If negative polls were worth mentioning three times in one story, surely two separate polls with significant positives for Bush are worth mentioning somewhere . . . right??

Right???

UPDATE 1-1-05: As it turns out, the Washington Post poll was mentioned in passing in the June 29 story discussed in the post, although the article did not mention the fact that the poll showed an increase in the number of Americans who felt that the war had contributed to the long-term security of the country.

9 Responses to “L.A. Times: We Mention Only the Negative Polls”

  1. The polls would have been mentioned if the LA Times were interested in informing the public presenting a negative view of Bush’s GWoT.

    GM Roper (31ac73)

  2. The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post are both liberal newspapers. Most major media sources are.

    They support war, especially when a Democrat is the White House (though it’s harder for liberals to adhere to their values when it’s a Republican administration in office).

    But reliable reports of serious problems in Iraq – coming from non-liberal sources, and even from many strong supporters of the war – present a challenge to many of us, when we are presented with so many conflicting viewpoints and perspectives. All sides of the debate try to push their version of what the truth is… Oftentimes, the actual truth lies somewhere in between.

    As for issue of poll figures and Iraq, Justin Logan, definitely not a liberal, wrote this excellent blog entry, less than one week ago… in which he cites poll figures provided by the Wall Street Journal, a pro-war newspaper. That was two days prior to President Bush’s speech, so if the numbers have shifted since then, that is not that surprising. But as more time passes, after this speech, expect them to shift again. That’s how it works in contemporary politics and public policy.

    Aakash (a075a3)

  3. Patterico, the WaPo poll is good, but the snap Gallup poll is garbage.

    Since they only polled those who had watched the speech — and since liberals, like the Sunnis in the Iraq election, largely boycotted — the respondent pool for the Gallup poll was something like 25% Independents, 25% Democrats, and 50% Republicans.

    You simply cannot use this for anything at all, except if you segregate the responses by party affiliation, at the very least (which Gallup did not do). Just as even the Washington Post poll should have corrected for the fact that they overpolled Democrats (yet again)… which means the pro-Bush results would be even more significant if they properly weighted the sample to correct for respondent-selection error.

    To determine the effect of the speech and the subsequent weekend talk-show appearances by Bush people, it’s best to wait until the next regularly scheduled polling on the war. The next time WaPo does a poll, for example, it can be compared to the recent one (which showed positive movement towards Bush on the great majority of questions, negative movement on a few, and stagnation on a few).

    Dafydd

    Dafydd (df2f54)

  4. Stop being such a link whore. You’ve been doing this thing for several years now, man.

    Angry Clam (f05866)

  5. Who are you talking to, Clam? Aakash? Or me?

    Patterico (756436)

  6. The next time WaPo does a poll, for example, it can be compared to the recent one (which showed positive movement towards Bush on the great majority of questions, negative movement on a few, and stagnation on a few).

    And then The Times can ignore it, like it ignored the most recent WaPo poll with numbers favorable to Bush.

    Patterico (756436)

  7. Aakash.

    Angry Clam (f05866)

  8. Clam,

    I understand what you’re saying, but it’s cool. If people don’t want to read his stuff, they won’t. And if they do, they will.

    Patterico (756436)

  9. I understand what you’re saying, but it’s cool. If people don’t want to read his stuff, they won’t. And if they do, they will.

    NOT IF I CAN HELP IT! DEATH TO ALL COMPETITORS!!

    Dafydd

    Dafydd (df2f54)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0775 secs.