Doug Kelly our Southern Command correspondent and polling and market research authority writes referencing this Pew study about the effect on polling results of varying the wording of a question: Government Surveillance A Question Wording Experiment
It is a perfect example of why understanding public opinion is so tricky . . . (from the Pew study)
To better understand how the manner in which the government’s surveillance program is described affects public evaluations, the Pew Research Center conducted a question wording experiment in a national telephone survey fielded between July 11 and 21, 2013 among 2,002 adults. The survey respondents were asked whether they would favor or oppose a government data collection program, but the wording of four elements of the program were described differently to different groups of respondents. These are: whether metadata or content is being collected; whether phone calls or emails are being monitored; whether the program has court approval; and whether the program is part of anti-terrorism efforts.
Mentioning the role of courts and describing the program as part of anti-terrorism efforts each had a substantial effect on public sentiment.
. . . even when the polling is done by honest and reputable firms, and one can see the cross-tabulations to assure the systemic quality of the studies.
The questions themselves and how they are stated and grouped in the questionnaire makes a difference in how the respondents answer. And to a larger extent than you might think. This is a known quality in polling by people in marketing, but to the low information voter reading the news, it doesn’t occur to him/her.
Doug Kelly
editor’s note: We would expect that should recent revelations in the British newspaper The Guardian regarding the previously undisclosed existence of XKeyscore as part of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance program becomes more common knowledge, the public’s opposition to the metadata (and more) nature of the NSA activities will grow.
Glenn Greenwald and “The Guardian” have been wreaking havoc on the Obummer regime. So much so that if you go to fundy left-wing blogs like Daily Kos, Huff Post or Democrat Underground Greenwald have the Obamabots calling him a Republican!
Yes the man who wrote these books is a Republican:
“A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency”
“How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From A President Run Amok”
“Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics”
Some of the real Libs are sticking by their guy Greenwald. But the Obamabots are up in arms about him. Remember no criticism of Obummer and he can do no wrong. Their appears to be a real split in the Democrat Party over this.