Plan B Forum

Well considering how skewed Foxes audience is that tells you something.

actually that had nothing to do with the fox audience, their polling operation is well respected and often cited on other networks. this wasn t on air poll, it was a poll of registered voters.

scooter, a fox smells its own hole..., again.

Someone else can convince this fool of his folly (or not) at this point I find work even less tedious (and it should be noted that I just ranked work below involuntary confinement.

wesw wrote: their polling operation is well respected

By whom?

Is that why their news operation's motto is "We report it. You decide (if it's true or not)?

Without a doubt, Fox has the most BiaSed news in the business.

there polling operation is a separate function.

and I disagree with you completely.

5 yrs ago..., maybe.

Crackpot wrote:Someone else can convince this fool of his folly (or not) at this point I find work even less tedious (and it should be noted that I just ranked work below involuntary confinement.

Brilliant!

no point in talking to an uninformed person with a closed mind.

I'm sorry, but wes is right about this...(blind pig/ acorn)

What I posted a few months ago in response to wes trying to dis a Washington Post/ ABC poll, also applies in this case:

Lord Jim wrote:It's just plain ignorant to try and discredit a WaPo/ABC poll based on what one thinks of the Washington Post, or ABC news...

It's not like they've got a bunch of liberal Trump-hating reporters on the phone conducting a "push" poll...

That's not how it works...

Whenever you see a poll attributed to a large news organization, be it the Washington Post, or NBC, (that splits their polling costs with The Wall Street Journal, which is why that one is called "the NBC/WSJ poll") or even (God forbid ) Fox News, those organizations have NOT conducted the poll...

The way it works is, those organizations contract professional independent polling operations to do the polling. And then because they paid for the polling, they're able to "brand" them with their company names and use that for promotional purposes.

And none of these journalism operations have any interest in deliberately generating false results, because that would just damage their reputation.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13607&start=1980&hi ... ow#p205940

Now, this is of course completely different from a "poll" of viewers that Bill O'Reilly (or Rachel Maddow) conducts during their shows that have zero scientific polling validity. (Or self-opt-in online pseudo-polls that control for no demographic factors and allow people to vote multiple times, which are equally invalid.)

Jim--while I agree with you re how the poll is conducted (selection of population to be polled, etc.), those sponsoring it often do have a big hand in wording the questions, and that wording can often skew results toward a particular response. I often like to see what the particular questions asked were in any poll.

Big RR, I certainly agree that the way a poll question is worded can affect the answers. (The best example of this is probably polling on abortion; depending on how the questions are worded you can get vastly different results...

Considering the question in the screen shot: "Is Christianity under attack in the US today?"...

It isn't "loaded" per se, but it is definitely very broad and ill defined. If you added a modifier like "under serious attack" (which invites the respondent to think about whether or not they believe there are attacks on Christianity taking place that could somehow do actual harm to the religion or its influence, versus the original version which basically invites anyone who can think of any person or event attacking Christianity, no matter the level of significance to answer yes.) you'd affect the results...

Scooter wrote:

The phony victimhood approach is how Slobodan Milosevitch garnered the support of racist Serbians to slaughter their neighbors.


Austria today says they were really 'victims' of Hitler and should not have to give back art stolen from Austrian Jews because of it.




yrs,
rubato

jim--that's my point--what does "under attack" even mean? Does it mean some people are trying to get the same/similar treatment for their religions as opposed to the status that christianity holds in the US? Does it mean some people are trying to eradicate christianity? Does it men some people are trying to limit its influence in politics? Or does it mean something else? How can anyone answer a question like that, and how can any conclusions be drawn from the responses?

And that's the problem with how questions are worded IMHO. I would think that some christians might well think like Bill O'Reilly that "Happy Holidays" is an attack on christianity, and others might not be certain but think it sometimes is, but what's the attack? Some might see the same as using inclusive songs at a holiday concert in a school and not limiting it to Christmas (particularly religious Christmas) songs? But where is the attack? Until we agree on what "attack' means the responses are useless, except to let the sponsor say a majority of Americans believe chrsitianity is under "attack", and that's meaningless (except to the spinmeisters who wanted that response).

I have to agree with jim.

the fox polling is really not much different than WaPo polling.

I also have to agree with, RR.

polling is easily manipulated and slanted.