Lies, D*mned Lies, and the Washington Post

Last week the Washington Post along with ABC News put out the results of a national poll on a wide variety of issues. I read the poll, and several articles about the poll. Clearly, Mark Twain’s famous quote, “lies, d*mned lies, and statistics” applies here.

This is not a matter of differences of opinion, nor of editorial judgments. This is bald-faced lying by the newspaper and network editors. They published statistics that any competent college graduate would have known were false. Many in the MSM republished the Post-ABC poll without an independent review to see if the poll’s results were false.

Thanks to those who brought this information to my attention. An article on 25 April on Ankle Biting Pundits under the screen name bulldogpundit, laid out the facts. Here’s the link: http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1490&mode=nested&order=1&thold=0

For those who’ve never heard of anklebitingpundits, and have no idea who bulldogpundit is, think of them like me – “a guy in his pajamas in front of his computer.” All of us are only as good as the verifiable facts we present. So I present the facts, which anyone including Dan Rather can easily verify, for your review:

The purpose of polls is to give a snapshot of public opinion as it relates to past or future elections. Yet the Post surveyed “adults,” the least accurate comparison. That skews the results about 10% in favor of Democrats, compared to “likely voters,” the most accurate comparison.

The next built-in error is the politics of the sample. In the last election, Republicans and Democrats tied at 37% each. The Post poll had 35% Democrat - 32% Independent - 28% Republican and 5% "Other.” A 7% pro-Democrat error.

In the last election, 34% said they were “conservative;” whereas in the Post poll that dropped to 30%. A 4% pro-Democrat error.

In the 2004 election, 17% of the voters were 18-29. The Post included 22% of this group, the only one that voted heavily for Kerry. A 2% pro-Democrat error.

Other skewed Post demographics in income, religion and marital status introduced pro-Democrat errors of 4 %, 5% and 3%, respectively, in favor of the Democrats.

From my work in the Ph.D. program at American University in political statistics, I know that all these points are accurate, and create bias in favor of the Democrats. Okay, what effects do the demographic falsehoods have on the results of the poll?

The errors overlap one another, so you cannot conclude that the Post-ABC poll was biased toward the Democrats by 38%. But every professional pollster and every competent college graduate would conclude that this poll misstates its results by at least 12% and as much as 15%. (Discuss among yourselves what fraction of college graduates ARE competent in statistics.)

Set aside the bias in the wording of the questions, which the article also discusses. Here’s what a conservative error rate of 12% does to the widely reported and dishonest results from this poll:

On approval/disapproval of how the President is handling social security, the Iraq War, the economy, terrorism and energy policy, all but two go in favor of the President when corrected, and the other two become close.

On support for or opposition to the President’s plan on Social Security, the corrected results change from 45% to 51% against, to 51% to 46% in favor.

These are my choices of issues in the poll. Look up the poll, choose your own questions, and get an honest result by reducing the Democrat side by 6% and increasing the Republican one by 6%. Here’s the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polls/post-abcpoll_042505.pdf

The editors at the Washington Post and ABC News are flat-out, bald-faced liars. Anyone interested in the truth can check the facts and conclude whether I am right. And I will confront any of those editors in any place under any conditions to defend my conclusions. In the Sunday news programs and papers, the coprophagic press have already begun citing this false poll as if it were true.

A free press is essential to the American system of government. But a free press that lies through its teeth will only exacerbate, not solve, the critical problems facing America, from Social Security’s impending failure, to the problem of outlaw judges on the federal bench, among many, many others.

About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu

I used the phrase "free press" the same way as the Framers, and as the authors of the original Massachusetts Charter did. It meant then, and it means today, all of the means of communication, collectively.

As for the broadcast media (which today also includes the Internet), the FCC and other government agencies are moving toward the view that they are entitled to the same level of freedom and protection as the ink-on-paper press has enjoyed since 1789. I have long supported that effort, since all parts of the press are equally useful in helping Americans be informed about current events.

Using your words, we have very limited censorship of electronic media today. In my view, there should be none, as there is none of the print media.

John / Billybob

. . . not counting radio transmission by someone who is not given a special license by the government, of course . . .

As for the broadcast media (which today also includes the Internet), the FCC and other government agencies are moving toward the view that they are entitled to the same level of freedom and protection as the ink-on-paper press has enjoyed since 1789. I have long supported that effort, since all parts of the press are equally useful in helping Americans be informed about current events.

Do you successfully defend people who set up radio transmitters without a license?

Using your words, we have very limited censorship of electronic media today. In my view, there should be none, as there is none of the print media.

Congressman, you and I don't see eye to eye at all on this. The government will arrest me if I try to compete on even terms with WCBS radio, without getting a scarce license from the government. Do you mean to say that you can read the First Amendment and derive from it the right of the government to limit the price of newsprint and ink "to improve communication" - thereby systematically inducing shortages, and giving the government excuse to ration newsprint according to who the government decides "needs" it?
Well, that is essentially the effect of federal licensing of radio transmission. The government nationalized the transmission of radio waves, and doled out licenses at its own convenience and mostly does not give licenses at its own convenience. And it has the gall to promote the intrusion of its ~~licensees~~ holders of titles of nobility into ~~journalism~~ politics. Broadcasting "the news" "objectively" is supposedly a "public service."

Journalism is politics. And it always will be politics - just as much in the future as it was in the past, when Hamilton and Jefferson waged their partisan battles through their own sponsored newspapers.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.