NYPost

October 8, 2002 -- ‘PUBLIC Says Bush Needs To Pay Heed To Weak Economy," blared yesterday's New York Times. Based on a telephone survey last week of 564 registered voters, the article claimed a majority of American voters believed that the president is spending too much time talking about Iraq while neglecting domestic problems.

But take a close look at the poll: The phrasing of the questions is so slanted and biased that it amounts to journalistic "push polling" - the use of "objective" polling to generate a predetermined result, and so vindicate a specific point of view.

It was just such polling that led the Democratic Party astray over the summer and played an important role in catalyzing their (politically suicidal) criticism of Bush over Iraq. Now the Times returns with another poll, on the verge of Congress' vote on a use-of-force resolution, to suggest that voters see the economy as a bigger issue than Iraq.

Slant No. 1: The Times poll asks voters if they would "be more likely to vote for a congressional candidate because of their positions on the economy or foreign policy."

The use of "foreign policy" throws the results way off and allows the Times to report that voters want more focus on the economy by 57 percent to 25 percent. But on Sept. 8-9 Fox News asked 900 voters a similar question - comparing not economy vs. foreign policy, but economy vs. national security. The results: an even split, with the economy pulling 32 percent and national security 31 percent. What a difference a word makes!

Slant No. 2: The Times then asked what voters would "like to hear the candidates talk more about, the possibility of war with Iraq or improving the economy." It got the expected outcome: 70 percent for the economy, 17 percent for Iraq. But that phrasing surely masks the impatience of voters who favor war with Iraq but are tired of the endless talk about it. Those who favor action and oppose more debate would register on the "economy" side of this biased question.

Slant No. 3: The poll found voters approving of military action against Iraq by 67 percent to 27 percent. But the Times then tried to undermine this finding by asking if voters would still back military action if there were "substantial American military casualties" (support drops to 54 percent) or "substantial Iraqi civilian casualties" (support drops to 49 percent).

So where is the question on how support would change if military action is quick and painless, as in the 1991 war? Or if (again as in 1991) postwar examination of Iraqi sites revealed that substantial work on weapons of mass destruction had been going on?

Slant No. 4: Having run doomsday, high-casualty scenarios by the voters, the poll then asked if Congress is "asking enough questions about President Bush's policy toward Iraq?" Invited to criticize Congress, voters do - 51% say that Congress is not asking enough questions, implying an indecision among Americans that is clearly not really there.

A truly impartial poll would have included a number of questions the Times omits, such as:

* If France or Russia vetoes a resolution in the U.N. calling for an invasion of Iraq, should America and Britain still attack Iraq, or should they refrain from attacking Iraq?

* Do you think that U.N. inspections will be effective in stopping Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction?

* Do you approve or disapprove of the attitude of the Democratic Party toward a possible invasion of Iraq?

For decades, responsible journalists refused even to cover public-opinion polls. Then, in a turnaround, they began to conduct them and treat their findings as hard news. Now the process has come full circle: Journalists appear to be using polls to generate the conclusions they want and to validate their own pre-existing theses and hypotheses.

When politicians use polling to produce a political outcome, not to probe what the public genuinely thinks, newspapers condemn it as "push polling." Is push polling any better done by a liberal newspaper universally respected for its integrity?

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2002