PDA

View Full Version : Polloganda


The Reaper
05-12-2006, 11:22
Just in, have to agree with the conclusions.

TR

The Patriot Post

06-19 Digest

TOP OF THE FOLD

Pollaganda—media polls as instruments of propaganda...

The mainstream print and television media are gleefully abuzz this week with headlines and lead broadcast stories touting President George W. Bush's latest, lowest public approval rating—31 percent. It seems Bush(43)'s degraded standing with Americans has dropped below even that of Bush(41)'s low of 33 percent back in August of 1992. Only three other presidents have registered lower approval ratings: Carter, Nixon and Truman.

Not to be outdone by the Executive Branch, however, is Congress, which boasts public approval marks a full eight points lower than those of President Bush.

There are two reasons that the performance ratings for the President and Congress are at record lows—even among their Republican constituents.

The first is obvious. Republicans, who control both the White House and Congress, have managed not to live up to even the lowest expectations for politicians, particularly on domestic issues. Though some Republicans are still conservative, most have fallen into the "distinction without a difference" category: They have morphed into Republicrats.

Ronald Reagan led Republicans and Democrats alike with a resolute conservative mandate and won 49 states for a second term (Walter Mondale won only his home state of Minnesota). However, President Bush and congressional Republicans have not exhibited leadership on many critical issues Americans care about. To the contrary, they have exhibited considerable arrogance and equivocation—assuming that somehow, because of their esteemed positions, the electorate would fall into line behind them.

On domestic issues, with a few minor exceptions, the President and Congress have failed miserably.

As The Patriot has noted, President Bush deserves high marks for his leadership in the war against Jihadistan, particularly on the current front—Operation Iraqi Freedom. Even here, though, he and his administration have done a poor job of rallying a majority of Americans behind this critical military campaign.

On domestic issues, however, most notably containing government spending and reducing taxes (with a few minor exceptions), the President and Congress have failed miserably. Additionally, many Republicans have aptly demonstrated how out of touch they are with their constituents on issues such as immigration reform. For example, Senate Republicans are still advocating amnesty for illegal aliens despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not support fast-track citizenship.

Their abysmal performance notwithstanding, there is a second more subtle and insidious reason that Republicans' standing among their own constituents, and the nation at large, is at a low point: Polloganda. Better known as disinformation or dezinformatsia, we're referring to any campaign of political propaganda masquerading as "objective journalism" designed to advance a liberal bias.

Pollaganda is a disinformation campaign of political propaganda masquerading as "objective journalism" to advance a liberal bias.

For example, after weeks of relentlessly "reporting" bad news for Republicans, CBS news anchor Bob Schieffer led Tuesday night with "Bad news for the Republicans" and went on to proclaim that a new CBS News/New York Times poll foretells "a dramatic shift in the political landscape."

Schieffer continued, "Are we about to see a dramatic shift in the political landscape? If the findings of a new CBS News/New York Times poll are accurate, the answer may well be yes. President Bush's ratings have hit another all-time low at only 31 percent and the Republican-controlled Congress gets even lower marks, an approval rating of only 23 percent. That's just a little better than 1994, when dissatisfaction was running so high that Republicans wrested control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years from Democrats."

Gloria Borger added, "Our new poll shows... that change is in the air. By wide margins, the public says Democrats would do a better job of handling most all issues. Democrats are viewed favorably by 55 percent of Americans. Just 37 percent favor Republicans. That's a complete turnaround from 1994 when Republicans dominated public opinion just before taking control of the Congress."

Wednesday morning, The New York Times' top headline was, "Poll Gives Bush His Worst Marks Yet." In the first paragraph, the writer notes, "Americans have a bleaker view of the country's direction than at any time in more than two decades, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Sharp disapproval of President Bush's handling of gasoline prices has combined with intensified unhappiness about Iraq to create a grim political environment for the White House and Congressional Republicans. Mr. Bush's approval ratings for his management of foreign policy, Iraq and the economy have fallen to the lowest levels of his presidency... The Times/CBS News poll contained few if any bright notes for Mr. Bush or Congress."

Of course, months of Times headlines and CBS reports prior to this poll had "few if any bright notes for Mr. Bush or Congress."

To be fair, the last paragraph of this 1,480 word Bush-bashing diatribe includes this tidbit: "Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush's opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election. And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics." In other words, with all the favorable mainstream media coverage Kerry and Gore get, Bush still comes out on top.

The MSM's relentless propagation of Democrat-generated dezinformatsia has portrayed Operation Iraqi Freedom as a quagmire, the booming economy as an unjust bust and the President as a lawless spy and has even suggested that George Bush is at fault for high fuel prices. All this certainly has taken its toll in the polls. These polls become self-fulfilling when the MSM incessantly pushes a particular perspective, polls the indoctrinated masses in search of that perspective and then reports the results as "news."

A large measure of polled perspective on politics, national security, the economy and public policy is shaped by the MSM, not reality.

Americans who agree to answer public-opinion polls about political performance are not political analysts, national-security specialists, economists or policy experts. They are folks who hold common labor and professional jobs in order to support their families and make ends meet. They are the backbone of our nation. Unfortunately, a large measure of their perspective on politics, national security, the economy and public policy is not reality based, but shaped by the MSM.

What The Times and CBS, along with other MSM outlets, are really doing is polling on the media's effectiveness at indoctrinating readers and TV viewers with opinion-shaping propaganda—or in The Patriot's parlance, "pollaganda."

Pollaganda is outcome-based opinion samples (polling instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome) based on prior-opinion indoctrination or cultivation by the media, the results of which are then used to manipulate public opinion further by advancing the perception that a particular opinion on an issue has majority support, and then presenting this "data" as if it were "news."

We say "outcome-based" because most polls reflect intentional propagation of a particular bias by Leftmedia television and print outlets to manipulate public opinion. They accomplish this by first saturating viewers with "reporting" that reflects a particular bias. After a thorough indoctrination, the media outlets then conduct "opinion polls" which, of course, reflect that indoctrination. Then they use the poll results to further proselytize by treating the results as "news." This in turn induces "bandwagon psychology" —the human tendency of those who do not have a strong ideological foundation to aspire to the side perceived to be in the majority—and thus further drives public opinion toward the original media bias, ad infinitum.

Pollaganda, then, is self-perpetuating.

Polls are so often manipulated for this purpose that The Patriot NEVER reports polling (conservative or liberal) as legitimate news because virtually all polling is nothing more than a well-crafted lie used to propagate a particular opinion or bias. This is not to say that polls don't provide an accurate account of public sentiment. It is simply to say that such sentiment is largely a reflection of MSM indoctrination—and thus comports with a liberal viewpoint.

In the final analysis, conservatives are forced to run a considerable and unrelenting MSM opinion gauntlet. Still, if President Bush and Republican leaders would merely listen to their conservative constituents and act accordingly, they would be in a stronger position to defend themselves against MSM pollaganda—and they would enjoy a more favorable standing with the American people.

There is still time before midterm elections for Republicans to make a comeback—but they had better start today.

There is still time between now and November for Republican leaders to make a comeback—but they had better start reversing the trend today if President Bush is to have a shot at fulfilling his most significant domestic-policy legacy—placing one more constructionist judge on the Supreme Court. Democrats know that would do more to restore Constitutional Federalism than any legislation or executive orders in more than a century—and that is why they are pulling out all the stops to regain control of the Senate.

Roguish Lawyer
05-12-2006, 12:19
Based on the thread title, I was expecting something about chicken, like PETA v. KFC. :munchin

dennisw
05-12-2006, 12:45
I wonder if the liberal media realizes the extent of their subjectivity? On Fox yesterday they had a professor from Columbia's School of journalism speaking. When asked if most of the professors were liberal or from the left , he spent an inordinate amount of time making a huge distinction between the two. Then he went on to say he really does not know the political persuasions of his colleagues. Really? I guess their random hiring practices just happen to result in 100 percent liberal professors.

I believe there is a momemtum factor involve. The mainstream media is so liberal and intellectually dishonest they are now feeding on one another. A story which would have drawn wide spread criticism is now accepted, as everyone is doing it. The old rules are out the window lying under the shade of the ends justifying the means.

It appears to be some form of passive collusion (maybe I'm giving them to much credit). The collusion comes from the desire to impress their colleagues and not to be censured by their peers. To one-up their fellow media types and when they get away with their extreme subjectivity; they continue to push the envelope because they can.

I believe the same is rampant in Hollywood. They are so afraid of being ostracized they bite their collective tongues and keep their mouths shut. They only ones who make a peep in protest are those who very secure in their star status like Bruce Willis. Inversely, if you want to be accepted and noticed, just say something inane and negative about Bush and you're treated like a closet rebel, a member of the club.

There was a time when Hollywood was ruled by patriots and capitalist. Since the 70's that has changed dramatically.

Case in point: In the 70's they started making movies which were financed by tax shelter type entities. The whole idea was to lose money and create some sort of leveraged write-off. Never happened. The public was so starved for movies, even the worse ones could not lose money. How smart were they not to know this?

Now they make movies which will have an international appeal. However, Mel Gibson makes movie about the death of Jesus Christ and makes a ton of money. Do they pay attention? No.

How many war movies were made during WWII? A ton. How many movies or television shows have been made about the current conflict? I can name a few:

1) Jarhead - about the first war in Iraq - movie sucked. Virtually no combat and was not a positive movie vis a vis the military.

2) Over there - very popular cable show. Was pretty realistic - pulled by fox.

3) the unit - we all know the contraversy surrounding this, but I noticed none of the episodes deal with the middle east except for one.

4) I know George Clooney made some sort of movie about middle east, but it must have been a real dog because I cannot even think of it and well, it did star Clooney.

5) HBO is coming out with show that focuses on the wounded soldiers in Iraq- can you imagine how much they will use this to further their views?

So, why do they not make a good movie about this great adventure we are currently on? Why not focus on the great heroics which occur on a daily basis? Can it be an accident, an over sight? I beleive it is either active or passive collusion.

Like the news media, they want the Republicans out and they do not want to incur the wrath of their peers and become branded: conservative(reasonable).

So they continue to distort the truth and Hollywood continues to lose money. Most of us have to be content with watching Fox news and reruns on the military channel. Sorry for the rant.

The Reaper
05-12-2006, 12:58
I think the point here is the self-fulfilling prophesy where the media spins the news to suit their interests (for example, message: the economy sucks), reinforces it at every opportunity so that people who gather their opinions from the news begin to believe it, then polls people (and skews the results by flawed questioning, bias, or "weighting") who have absorbed their message and acts surprised when they "report" the results.

Examples:

The economy is bad
All surveillance is bad
The GWOT is a failure
Iraq had no WMD and President Bush lied
President Bush is evil and incompetent
Republican corruption is rampant (Democratic corruption is nonexistent)
Guns are bad and all firearms owners are rednecks or nuts
Etc., etc. etc.

I now believe that the media decides what their position is before reporting the news, editorializes rather than reports it, and begins reinforcing their stories (and one another) in a direct effort to influence popular opinion. They seem to believe this is justified and is the proper way to cover the news.

The scary part is, it gets worse every year.

TR

rubberneck
05-12-2006, 13:04
The scary part is, it gets worse every year.

TR

Now that we have gotten the bad news out of the way the good news is that the viewership/circulation of the traditional MSM has been going down every year as well. I wonder if there is a tie between the two?

Warrior-Mentor
05-12-2006, 16:29
How they ask the quest skews the results as well...especially the questions asked. RL & AL probably knows this better than anyone...

"Have you stopped beating you wife yet?"

GratefulCitizen
11-03-2007, 23:13
As another election cycle begins (do they ever end?), more talking heads quote polls and prognosticate.

The dishonesty surrounding polls and their use as propoganda is quite irritating.

I figured this subject had been brought up previously.
(It's not suprising that TR has addressed this. To this newbie, his polymathy grows more impressive by the day.)


I have a few things to add.

-----
The media tries to legitimize the authority of their (scientific) polls by noting the "margin of error".
What they don't tell you about is something called the "confidence level".

Typically, the polling is done with a "confidence level" of 95%.

What this means: the margin of error will be correct 95% of the time.
What this also means: the margin of error will be incorrect the other 5% of the time.

Why does this matter?
Think about Florida.

As soon as the exit polls indicate one candidate winning a state, allowing for the margin of error, media outlets would predict that candidate's (local) victory.
This is where the 5% incorrectness starts causing trouble.

The 5% incorrectness in this case is two-tailed.
What this means: the prediction will be "wrong" in the "right" direction 2.5% of the time, and it will be "wrong" in the "wrong" direction 2.5% of the time.

Is 2.5% that bad?
Well, the odds say at least one state gets called wrongly. **

Let's just hope it's not a really important state in terms of electoral votes. :rolleyes:
-----

-----
The next problem is called "publication bias".

If enough (scientific) surveys are done, given a specific confidence level, some of them will come up "wrong".
Just publish the one with the result you want, and bury the rest.
-----

-----
Furthermore, pilot studies can be done in order to actively bias results.

Specifically: do several polls asking variations on the same question.
Don't publish the results.

Whichever version of the question tends to give the desired results is used in a subsequent "official" public poll (scientific or not).
-----

Scientific survey sampling, when properly used, can reveal truth.
But when misused, it lends credibility to lies.


If anyone finds this sort of thing interesting, there's a good book on it by Jeffrey S. Rosenthal called Struck By Lightning: the curious world of probabilities.
It's explains things well for the layman and still interesting to the uber-nerd.


**Arcane details
There is a 71.8% chance of getting at least one with p=.025 and n=50.

82ndtrooper
11-04-2007, 03:44
Now that we have gotten the bad news out of the way the good news is that the viewership/circulation of the traditional MSM has been going down every year as well. I wonder if there is a tie between the two?

Most definetly. Morgan Stanley recently sold thier 13.5% stake in the New York times. Citing that over the last three years subcribership has taken a toll on the company per share earnings. I'm sure upper management also got tired of the bitter taste in your mouths being aligned with an anti capitilist propagandized paper.

It's fairly simple to see the indoctrination process with the MSM as mentioned in the cited article above. Fox News Corp is not nearly the "fake" news that the MSM would like to portray it as. In fact, I believe they have something to be scared of with Fox News Corp. If you want facts, and you want to hear what the MSM is not reporting, then all one has to do is tune in for an hour of Fox and you'll get at the very least the other spin the story.

While Fox was reporting the rapid decline in attacks in the Anbar Province and In Badgad and that the number of soldier deaths was at it lowest in 3 years, MSNBC had Chris Mathews still foaming at the mouth to have Valery Plame on promoting her new book. Haven't we heard enough of Valery Plame already ? :rolleyes:

Even in the face of what appears to be small improvements and that a surge is starting to have real success, the MSNBC's of the world are still salivating to keep the tired old story of Valery Plame in the spotlight citing treason for Rove, Cheney, Novak et al. They just can't stop themselves from not accepting any real defeat or that just maybe, maybe things are beginning to turn in Iraq.

Jack Moroney (RIP)
11-04-2007, 05:52
Our country has become a nation of sheep and just like the movie "Babe", when a pig can convince sheep he has the attributes of any herding dog, they will follow any pig. Unfortunately, for most, it will take another pack of wolves to show the sheep that pigs who would be herders, but aren't, will be devoured along with the sheep. Until we get enough herders that will lift their leg on hydrant of mediocrity spewing out all this crap we are going to be in for a tough time.

incommin
11-04-2007, 08:29
I think we are seeing the seeds sowed by the Woodstock generation.... the anti war, heavy drug use, turn on and tune out, anti government generation. They are the movers now in Hollywood and the people reporting in the press; compounded by the Republicans heavy off track use of power over the past few years.

Am I off base?????

Jim

bandycpa
11-04-2007, 11:59
Our country has become a nation of sheep and just like the movie "Babe", when a pig can convince sheep he has the attributes of any herding dog, they will follow any pig. Unfortunately, for most, it will take another pack of wolves to show the sheep that pigs who would be herders, but aren't, will be devoured along with the sheep. Until we get enough herders that will lift their leg on hydrant of mediocrity spewing out all this crap we are going to be in for a tough time.

Post of the year as far as I'm concerned. :lifter

Thanks COL.



Bandy

Roguish Lawyer
11-04-2007, 12:30
I think we are seeing the seeds sowed by the Woodstock generation.... the anti war, heavy drug use, turn on and tune out, anti government generation. They are the movers now in Hollywood and the people reporting in the press; compounded by the Republicans heavy off track use of power over the past few years.

Am I off base?????

Jim

Absolutely correct -- this is the greatest problem in our country today. You just left out the schools and universities, which they also control.

The most dangerous insurgency we are facing is not abroad. IMNSHO.

JMI
11-04-2007, 12:48
Personally I think if we had better leadership across the board in this country the media would not wield as much power. Yes the MSM always has had power, and they always have been more liberal, but this adminstration and this congress have given the media much ammunition to get their agenda across to the masses.

Lack of leardership on the part of both parties, but especially the Republicans because they are my party, it what is to blame. No clear agenda that they have pushed through on the domestic side, including backward thinking "moral conservatism" positions on issues like abortion and stem cell research, stunt the growth of my party.

The Republican Party is stubborn and inflexible in my opinion, and has set themselves up for the some of what is happening now in the MSM, who has turned up their attacks and will make this upcoming election one of the ugliest to date.

I am and always will be a conservative - I just do not recognize my party anymore. We have given the MSM all the ammunition they need and they are storing it in cache's for the battle ahead.

IMHO.