One of the reasons newspaper circulation and TV news ratings are falling is because people no longer trust journalists. They are tired of being mislead as reporters select and distort news coverage to conform to the media’s ideology.

Monday produced two prime examples and both involved slanted opinion surveys.

The first was headlined: “Gap seen between public, General Assembly on recent stances.” The story showcased a Christopher Newport University survey that claimed eight out of ten Virginians supported a new law that would require background checks for all firearms purchasers at gun shows, including those who purchase from private individuals.

The reporter, Jim Nolan, predicts an obstinate Virginia General Assembly will ignore “the public’s strong preferences.” What Nolan doesn’t say is the survey was dishonest and specifically designed to produce an answer supporting additional regulation.
 

The question read: “Under Virginia law, in order for an individual to be able to purchase a firearm at a gun show from a licensed firearms dealer, that individual must first pass a criminal background check. However, that same individual could purchase a firearm at that same gun show from an unlicensed seller without first having to pass a criminal background check. This is known as the GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE. Do you support changing the law to close this loophole so that anyone purchasing a firearm at a gun show has to pass a criminal background check first or should the law remain as it is?”

There are two methodology problems that distort the results. The term “unlicensed seller” implies someone is skirting the law and gives a negative connotation to the listener. Second, using the pejorative term “GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE” is simply malpractice. Repeating the term “loophole” doubles the dishonesty. The technical term for this, aside from lying, is tainting the sample.

An honest poll uses neutral language. A biased, pro–gun control poll uses loaded language to influence results.

I’m surprised only 80 percent wanted to change the law, maybe a few lobbyists slipped into the sample. American’s don’t like “loopholes” that slippery people use to get by with something.

The only loophole a vast majority of the public would not support eliminating is one that allowed adultery; and even then women would be for elimination.

If the sponsors of the survey — CNU, The Virginian–Pilot and WVEC–TV — had been interested in accuracy, the question would have been:

“Under Virginia law, to purchase a firearm at a gun show from a licensed firearms dealer an individual must first pass a criminal background check. However, that same individual is allowed purchase a firearm at that same gun show from a private citizen without first passing a criminal background check. Do you support changing the law so that a person who makes an private sale at a gun show is required to conduct a criminal background check before he can sell the firearm to another individual or should the law remain as it is?”

This answer would truly reflect public opinion, because the wording accurately and neutrally describes the existing situation. The CNU poll does neither.

If a Republican candidate conducts a poll with questionable wording, he’s blasted for conducting a “push poll.” When the media does it, the poll is a public service.

Example two concerns Obamacare. This story claims strong opposition is at the lowest level since September 2009, once again based on biased questioning: “In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose the health care reforms that were passed by Congress in March?”

The misleading term is “reforms.” “Reforms” implies something was wrong with the status quo and the law corrected the situation.

Interestingly, the word “reform” does not appear in the Associated Press story, evidently because the term served its purpose in the questionnaire. Yet, even after cooking the books, AP still couldn’t get the desired outcome, so the reporter simply distorts the results.

He doesn’t tell you “strong opposition” levels are three times that of merely “oppose.” Which is the reverse of most polling, where general support or opposition is usually far higher than intense feelings.

Even more damning is that “strongly support” Obamacare is 21 percent, while “somewhat support” is 19 percent, almost a one–to–one ratio.

Successful political consultants know the side with the intense support is the side that wins and opposition to Obama’s “reform” remains far more intense, regardless of temporary polling fluctuations.

Recently the Richmond Times–Dispatch and PolitiFact.com have partnered to produce the “Virginia Truth–O–Meter” where august journalists evaluate the veracity of statements made by politicians after they filter the facts through their own ideological prism. The scale on the meter ranges from true to “pants–on–fire.”

My suggestion for the partnership would be to perform a real public service and broaden its focus to include another category of dangerous fantasists: liberal political reporters.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites