Chris Johnson wrote: > I'm baffled at how Mr. Atherton draws these conclusions.
I'm worried that Mr. Johnson is baffled by my conclusions! After teaching statistics and Introduction to Computers for a number of years I've become concerned that the persuasion techniques used in the media have risen above the threshold of the average citizen to detect them. Although I don't agree with his politics, I'm becoming more convinced that everyone should watch, "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media." I do not agree with his conclusions, but it might be beneficial if everyone was a little more paranoid about facts presented in the media. > 1. True, statistics can be valid and be used to misrepresent a > situation (implications are always drawn by people -- one > cannot blame the statistics themselves for misrepresenting an > implication as that attributes a conscience to an inanimate object). > But among all the surveys we see year in and year out, this report > does not seem to show any glaring abuse or misuse. There's no obvious > evidence of choosing the questions or wording of the questions such > as to draw the kind of responses wanted to support a position. There's > no obvious evidence of selecting an audience or issue to get the results > desired and then applying those results to a slightly different though similar > sounding issue. > The survery asked if people supported a smoking ban, and 72% > said yes. That's hardly surprising given that roughly 70% to 80% > of the population is non-smoking. First let me say that although I agree with Mr. Hohmann's analysis, I don't think that the major problem here is sampling bias. I'll try and illustrate my objection with a simple example. "Who would you vote for in the next election, George Bush or Saddam Hussein?" If asked in isolation the responses to this question might give an inaccurate assessment of the public's support for President Bush. Now consider the question: "Do you favor a citywide smoking ban in most indoor public places?" If this is a forced choice question without any other alternative proposals offered it might give an inaccurate assessment of public opinion (even if all citizens were surveyed). For example, I would be forced to answer "Yes," but it would not accurately reflect my position. Consider the question: "Should businesses be permitted to allow people to smoke, if the owners insure that customers and employees are protected from secondhand smoke?" I'm not sure what the results would be, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it would be more than 25% of voters. > 2. True, sometimes "good" causes succumb to using > unscrupulous methods because they are easier, more powerful > and used by their opponents. But how does this story show that? > The group hired an independent research firm to guage the public's > feeling about a number of aspects regarding the issues of public > smoking laws. How is that unscrupulous? If members of the group realized that the results do not accurately reflect public opinion, then it is unscrupulous. I think that it is the responsibility of the those requesting the survey and those performing it to insure that the results accurately reflect what is true of public opinion. I don't think that this is true in this case. > 3. True, the media often (most of the time, when speaking of the > popular press and broadcast media) fails to present balanced, > accurate or fully informative arguments to the public. And likewise > the public much of the time (most of the time?) appears to be incapable or > uninterested in using critical thinking to examine the arguments and > their own beliefs. But I don't see this story as being a > particularly good example of that failing. The story is about the > survey, and the results are pretty much one-sided. I don't know of > any valid surveys showing contrary results, so the story is not going > to be balanced in that manner. It wouldn't have taken more than a sentence to let us know whether or not the survey had offered alternative proposals. I believe that including this statement was the responsibility of the reporter. > However, smoking is so insidious I'd rather trade more government > control of smoking for less government control of some > current aspect of our lives in which they intrude. It _is_ a > slippery slope, and a smoking ban is on that slope, but the > amount of persuasion, measured in years and money, spent by > the tobacco industry needs some major opposition, and the > government is the current best agent to effect that change. I believe that if you analyze these issues from fundamental principles of Rights and Responsibilities they have pretty clear solutions. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
