> -----Original Message----- > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:55 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Bush 34, Cheney 18 > > What about the loaded questions? > > "After 9/11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some > phone calls in the US without getting court warrants, saying this was > necessary in order to reduce the threat of terrorism. Do you approve > or disapprove of the president doing this?"
I don't disagree but I'm curious as to how you would have rather seen the question worded. Personally I feel the question was loaded in the president's favor - they both invoked 9/11 (a highly emotional, patriotic symbol rife with the implication that you should stand by your government) as a causal factor. They presented the president's primary reason for the action. They also chose the very ambiguous word "some" to describe the number of incidents (a word which tends to invoke smaller rather than larger numbers). The question may have been asked as "President Bush has authorized government wiretaps on thousands of phone calls in the US without getting court warrants. Do you approve or disapprove of the president doing this?" That question is decidedly blunt but completely factual. It provides no foundational or motivational information whatsoever. Truly loaded questions might appear like this: "President Bush has authorized government wiretaps on thousands of phone calls made by US citizens without getting court warrants and without proof of criminal activity or intent. Do you approve or disapprove of the president doing this?" Or "President Bush approved some requests for the limited wiretapping of suspect phone calls without getting court warrants to reduce the threat of terrorism. Do you approve or disapprove of the president doing this?" The first is slanted away from the president. It reminds the reader that these are US citizens being tapped and clearly states that there was no proof of criminal or terrorist activity. It places blame for the situation clearly on the president's shoulders. The second is slanted in favor of the president. It removes direct responsibility for the activity (he only approved the requests, and even then only some of them). It states a clear correlated benefit to the action (not a claim as in the original) and clearly states that the calls were already "suspect". Finally it reinforces the idea that this activity was limited in scope. One of the primary issues in survey construction is that you simply can't provide truly neutral language. People will hear the questions through the filter of their own biases. I found the original question favorable to the president you found it unfavorable to the president - the fun part is that we're both right. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:198391 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
