By adding: from known terrorist from al Qaeda where at least one end of the call is overseas one or all would do.
On 2/28/06, Jim Davis wrote: > 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:5:198438 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
