About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Bad reporting about bad polling

October 07, 2009 11:18 am ET by Jamison Foser

MSNBC's Monica Novotny just read a Quinnipiac poll result:

According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 65 percent say eliminating the threat of terrorism is worth American troops' lives in Afghanistan.

That's super, but Quinnipiac may as well have asked if world peace, an end to poverty, and a pony for every child is worth Americans troops' lives in Afghanistan.  See, we're never going to "eliminate the treat of terrorism."  Never.  Terrorism is a tactic, not a finite object that can be destroyed.  Finding out that there is strong public support for something that simply isn't going to happen -- that isn't particularly useful.

In fact, the same Quinnipiac poll found only 38 percent think "the United States will be successful in eliminating the threat from terrorists operating from Afghanistan."  Novotny and MSNBC didn't mention that result.

It's bad enough that polling operations ask meaningless questions about whether people support the use of military force in an attempt to reach an outcome that is impossible. Even worse is that news organizations like MSNBC selectively use those poll questions to overstate the extent of public support for war.

Tags: MSNBC, Monica Novotny

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by goesto11 (October 07, 2009 11:43 am ET)
      2  
      To MSNBC's credit, the Morning Joe crew did mention the 38 percent and even noted that it seemed strange compared to the larger number of people who favor military action in Afghanistan.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JonPaul (October 07, 2009 11:48 am ET)
         
      ...and then quickly changed the subject, to ensure the cognitive dissonance didn't spark any critical thinking in his audience.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by themidnightreview.com (October 07, 2009 12:01 pm ET)
         
      If you destroy one, another will pop up. I believe there should be greater focus placed on prevention and apprehension within the United States, and adopt a more isolationist attitude, but offer the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan the same we offered Germany and Japan...

      -----------------------------------
      The Midnight Review
      Mum Is The Word
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (October 07, 2009 12:38 pm ET)
         
      But, but, but, Bush called it a Global War on Terrorism, and a war is something we can win. He told us that he was going to handle it differently and better than anyone else ever had done, and he was going to protect us, right?

      End sarcasm.

      Bush told us this despite the fact that he failed to really even try to protect us before 9/11. His administration might not have been able to stop the well-planned attack on America, but they sure could have done a lot more. This despite the clear evidence, recently reinforced by the investigation of that guy from Colorado whose plan to hit NYC transit around 9/11, that police and FBI are our best resources for stopping terrorism in the USA. Top that off with the facts that invading Iraq likely made Iran stronger and made the mideast more dangerous and that Iraq didn't have any WMD's we needed protection from!

      We can't win a war against terrorism with our military. That's why our military leader in Afghanistan says that we need to stop military action that accidentally kills civilians, because he is aware that by "winning" a battle by destroying a village, it is going to cause us to "lose the war".
      Report Abuse