Here is an example of how slight changes to a poll question can change the responses. The latest New York Times/CBS News poll on wiretapping had a question noting that “After 9/11, George W. Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants.” It then asked: “Do you approve or disapprove of this?” Fifty percent disapproved, and 46 percent approved. But when the same poll question substituted “President Bush” for “George W. Bush” and added the phrase, “saying this was necessary to reduce the threat of terrorism,” the disapproval numbers dipped to 46 percent, and the approvals climbed to 53 percent. No wonder Bush, Karl Rove and other administration officials have been conducting a public relations offensive in recent days, linking wiretapping to terrorism and national security.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
14 Comments
One of the first lessons taught to me in my first college Poli Sci class over 30 years ago…people will naturally oppose a government action before it is taken, and naturally approve it afterward…regardless of the action.
Many polls going on don’t even include warrants in their question.
How many people are even aware of this incident wtih the NSA and the UN?http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,905899,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3659310.stm
You might notice that both of those articles are not US newspapers. It appears this wasn’t newsworthy for the American papers.China mines all their electronic surveillance to keep their citizens safe. I’ve never wanted to live there.
Exactly right mrcontroversy. The American Public really doesn’t even care for the most part. They might oppose it because they don’t like Bush, but it is not like there will be masses of demostrators protesting in D.C. calling for the end of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
“They might oppose it because they don’t like Bush”
Joe, sometimes you are unintentionally hilarious. Do you honestly think that’s why people are objecting? You’ve got it just backwards.
“but it is not like there will be masses of demostrators protesting in D.C. calling for the end of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”
I hate to pick on you, Forrest, but the issue is the fact that Bush VIOLATED FISA. Pull your head out.
No he didn’t! Everything is completely legal.
And interesting poll I heard (and haven’t found a link to, yet) was concerning if people approved if the government monitored phone and internet traffic. About 50% said they did. When asked a follow up if they approved if the government monitored THEIR phone and internet communications only 25% of the people approved.
Isn’t it sad when Americans don’t give a rats ass if their neighbor has their civil liberties violated just as long as their own civil liberties aren’t infringed upon?
If (when) I find a link I will post it.
And Joe contradicts some of the best legal minds in the country. But he’s right on message with Rush!
This also shows why polls should always be taken with a grain of salt. Questions can be and frequently are manipulated toward a bias.
Then the liberal main stream media will pick and choose the answer that best fits their agenda and voila, we have our next news cycle.
k said
“Isn’t it sad when Americans don’t give a rats ass if their neighbor has their civil liberties violated just as long as their own civil liberties aren’t infringed upon?”
Kinda what we thought about the churchies and the hate amendment!
You mean the I wan’t to shove my personal lifestyle choice down your throat and make you accept it amendment?
Woops…
I meant:
You mean the I wan’t to stop you from shoving your personal lifestyle choice down my throat amendment.
Who is trying to force you to adopt their lifestyle? All I know about is that some people want to be allowed to follow their lifestyle and their conscience. The amendment is designed to impede that.
Nathan, from what I have read you are a college student. Perhaps you should do something while at your school, learn to think for yourself. Instead of sitting around talking about the latest episode of American Idol with your friends you should choose to avoid the bovine effect. That is where you just hang around, eat, talk (moo), and basically let your brain die from lack of use. Because if you were able to think for yourself you would know what the amendment was really about. Trust me when I say you will really appreciate not allowing some politician or pastor to make up your mind for you.