Did Froomkin learn his fuzzy math counting chads?
Posted on 10/14/2005 10:42:40 AM PDT by OESY
Dan Froomkin wrote a breathless column for today's web edition of the Washington Post that should have been pulled. Instead, the Post allowed it to remain on the site with a buried nugget that negated the entire thrust of his article. Titled "A Polling Free-Fall Among Blacks", Froomkin related the findings of an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that supposedly gave George Bush a 2% approval rating among African-Americans:
In what may turn out to be one of the biggest free-falls in the history of presidential polling, President Bush's job-approval rating among African Americans has dropped to 2 percent, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. The drop among blacks drove Bush's overall job approval ratings to an all-time low of 39 percent in this poll. By comparison, 45 percent of whites and 36 percent of Hispanics approve of the job Bush is doing.
Given that George Bush got 9% of that vote in 2000 and 11% of it in 2004, a nine-point drop in real support among this single demographic doesn't sound like a spectacular surprise, especially given the terrible media performance surrounding Hurricane Katrina. Froomkin makes sure to stage it as dramatically as possible, however:
A few months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found Bush's approval rating among blacks at 51 percent. As recently as six months ago, it was at 19 percent. Wow. Now that sounds pretty impressive, but only if the reader has no sense of electoral history or common sense about polling immediately after the real and imagined frustrations surrounding the catastrophe response. Froomkin gets a quote from a professional pollster who says he's never seen such a dramatic plunge in any subgroup.
Well ... there may be a reason for that. In the ninth paragraph, Froomkin finally gets around to discussing the methodology of the poll. It turns out that the entire sample consisted of only 807 adults -- not voters or likely voters -- only 89 of which were African-Americans. Froomkin notes, with apparently no sense of irony whatsoever, that the "margin or [sic] error" on this pathetic sample would be ... "considerable".
In other words, it's ludicrous and simply folly to use it for a report. Bear in mind, however, that Froomkin wasn't alone in spouting it to the world. Tim Russert repeated it on Wednesday night's NBC network news show with Brian Williams.
But it gets better -- or worse, depending on your point of view -- if the reader holds out to the fourteenth paragraph. The Post updates the story thus:
[Late Update: The Pew Research Center is just out with its latest poll, which has a larger sample, and it finds Bush's approval rating among blacks at 12 percent, down only slightly from 14 in July. Here are those results.] So the biggest free-fall in history has George Bush losing 2 points among a demographic which proportionally voted for him in reality one point lower last November than where he shows now. All of the numbers in the Pew poll fall within the margin of error -- which means Bush hasn't fallen at all among African-Americans.
No self-respecting blogger would leave a post up like that, at least not without a bold-type disclaimer at the top of the text directing readers to the latest update first. That must show what all those levels of editors and fact-checkers get readers of the Washington Post.
UPDATE: CQ reader and night owl Kyle H. just saw Conan O'Brian use the 2% polling number on his show. Welcome to the birth of an urban legend, yet another one from the fertile womb of Katrina.
Posted by Captain Ed
When his apporval goes up to 51% after 9/11 they dismiss it, but when it drops after Katrina they embrace it.
With a huge margin of error too...
Liberal Media Bias in all its glory
You can NEVER believe the left leaning talking head infortainer news readers or propaganda spreaders.
OMGosh. I was suckered by the Post story because I didn't read all of it. LOL! I should have known better.
Excellent post. I am consistantly astounded that anyone smart enough to find FreeRepublic is stupid enough to believe anything coming from the press. As a rule, I trust nothing from our media until I verify it with non-media sources. To do anything else is to invite an early death due to ulcers.
A valuable lesson for future reference...if you see the words "Washington Post" assume you are being snookered. But it sounds like you already knew that ; )
Yeah, you're right. Good advice.
The Captain once again makes the media walk the plank. I'm sure there will be a correction in tonight's shows... - not.
Thanks for this post. It puts things straight again. The lying bastards in the ratmedia obviously put their thumb on the scale again. They KNOW which Blacks to call. They can get a zero approval if they wanted it.
The mainstream media is to information what American Idol is to real talent and ability.
It's the canonization of rumor and innuendo to fact and science. That's why they're so fond of these polls; it makes them seem scientific to claim that their accuracy is plus or minus 3%, when the bias is already 110%.
Like a lot of these "professional schools," (they need to require some real science and academic rigor) instead of just seeming to be credible, which the most discriminating readers and viewers are going to see through.
Thus the mainstream constituency becomes more and more the least discriminating segment of the population while those capable of independent thought and good judgment migrate elsewhere. So while these mainstream media types may be well known among a certain crowd of people, increasingly, it's nobody they really respect and want to be known by -- and that contempt is the only information communicated anymore.
It's as though they feel they can say anything and get away with it now because only a fool would believe and take them seriously anyway. So they've given up trying to fool those with any good sense and intelligence play to their base of people who can't tell any difference but that they're in the newspaper or television.
It's really sad and pathetic what the mainstream media has become. Bloated beached whales thrashing around hoping somebody will notice -- and care enough to drag them back into the water. It's over folks. Turn out the lights and save the electricity.
The link to Captain's Quarters is just to the site, not to the piece. Here's the permalink:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005610.php
Here's the link to the WP article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/10/13/BL2005101300885.html?nav=rss_politics
The MSM: "We deceive, you believe."
Regarding the WaPo, if the reader begins with the last few paragraphs and then reads from last to first you will find more nutty analyses and non-sequiturs than one could imagine. It has often been said that the headline writers are either from or reside in Washington D.C.'s St. Elizabeth.
Some on the conservative side are actually feeding this. Bahahahaha!
The worst thing about the journalistic style (pay attention academics) is that they waste ten paragraphs trying to build interest in reading their article, instead of telling us what they have to know that is so valuable in ten paragraphs or less.
That style ensures that their lengthy articles won't get read -- but the publishers and editors are paying by the number of words and not what they mean. And if they generate a lot of letters pointing out that fact, the better, because it shows interest.
There used to be a time when the mainstream media had respected and influential writers. Now they bypass that manner and tell us what we ought to think because that's what the majority thinks (polls). It becomes the tyranny of conformity and opinion.
That ensures that all the formidable, independent, intelligent and perceptive people are going to be on the other side. That's not a winning strategy.
The turning point came when the infomercials became more believable and credible than the regular programming.
It's not so much that the mainstream media has gotten worse, as much as that everybody else has gotten so much better. Journalism has improved 10% -- but everybody else has improved 1,000% -- and the journalism crowd keeps looking back over their shoulder wondering where everybody else is.
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.
