Capitol Grilling: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online

You are not logged in. [Log In] Main Site » Forums » Discussion » The Grill 2009 » Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online

Page 1 of 2

Topic Options

Rate This Topic

#1048 - 03-29-02 01:14 PM Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	We hear a lot of talk about political spin. Whether you call it propaganda or public relations one thing remains certain: it is elusive and often misunderstood by those who practice it. Spin in its true sense is a lost art yet one that is increasingly adopted in name by self-appointed partisan hacks across the Internet. This phenomenon has extended to the general populace further distorting a landscape dominated by agenda-driven politicians, media outlets and corporate interest groups. http://www.capitolgrilling.com/articles/2002_cyberspin.html First segment of a three part series.
Top

#1049 - 03-29-02 01:59 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Anonymous Anonymous Unregistered	Very good and I can't wait for the rest of the story as Paul Harvey says.
Top

#1050 - 03-29-02 02:48 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
UrbanEnnui UrbanEnnui Member Registered: 07-17-01 Posts: 1012	A fascinating and very well argued “rant.” I see that you have spent more energy analyzing the content and mindsets of flamers than you've let on. I suspect, however, that the value of discussion boards as they stand now would be somewhat different for a researcher than how you envisage it in your essay. You write: “As a medium for free speech, cyberspace offers a hidden treasure trove for intelligence analysts, scholars and run of the mill political enthusiasts…. It is also a breeding ground for activists and spin artists more than willing to oblige with their unique brand of fact and fiction.” Very true, but that does not equal this: “Discussion forums are the most effective tool for opinion data mining.” At best, I think discussion forums could be used by researchers to help formulate topics or questions to be covered during research; they could not, in their current form, be used as an actual source of data. For example, a researcher working on, say, the viability of the two party system could come to your site and check out your threads relating to this topic. He or she could then get a sense of some of the more extreme points of view regarding this system, and such information could be quite useful in crafting questionnaires aimed at exploring the issue. The reason he or she couldn't use the threads themselves as data is simply because the researcher would have absolutely no idea about who posted what. Even in qualitative research (gag), certain criterion have to be met: If you want the opinion of a bunch of 20-30 year old white conservative males, you draft a bunch of living and breathing 20-30 year old white conservative males and you hold a focus group or you conduct in-depth interviews. But as you yourself admitted while discussing the various types of cyber activists, that 20-something conservative male posting on your forum could very well be a 65-year-old liberal widow trying to subtly push her agenda forward. A researcher can't put much faith in any one individual on any one site because of this very fact (a.k.a. the anonymity of the web). Even a decent content analysis would be somewhat tainted by the fact that nobody really knows who the contributors are…. What a researcher can use is reaction. Reaction to a poseur's thread, or reaction to the spoutings of a true believer: it doesn't really matter so long as it brings up issues that can be covered in real research. For better or worse, research requires demographic information, and as sites like yours depend on the anonymity of their users, their data is essentially useless beyond the desk research stage. Having said that, you've raised a number of extremely salient points (the growing significance of the cyber community, the various distinctions of online hacks (I'd love to see this in an org chart), the archival potential, etc.) and I'm very much looking forward to reading the second installment.
Top

#1051 - 03-29-02 03:01 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
american woman american woman Moderator Magnifique Registered: 11-10-01 Posts: 4484 Loc: San Diego	Nice article, zeroflux. I too feel ready for ‘the rest of the story’. Specifically, as the sysop here you have more insight into poster behavior than do we on the outside. You also follow the “industry” of message boarding more closely. On occasion you have posted tidbits of what you observe from your side and I would love to see more of this type of information in your next installment. Other things that would be nice to see: What makes for successful sysoping? How can consumers identify and deal with trolls and flamers? How can consumers better identify spin? Urban, actually zero’s statement about discussion forums being the most effective tool for opinion data mining does stand well on it’s own. I was about to go where you went in the criticism, but the data is indeed a fertile ground for “opinion mining”. Clearly, as you point out, it’s no place to get comparative data about the opinions of various demographic groups. But if you are looking for opinions and ideas in and of themselves, the forum archives are a good resource.
Top

#1052 - 03-29-02 07:12 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
UrbanEnnui UrbanEnnui Member Registered: 07-17-01 Posts: 1012	"Urban, actually zero's statement about discussion forums being the most effective tool for opinion data mining does stand well on it's own." No, not really. I was responding to particular content (most of which was on page 2), and in terms of actual research it does not stand alone well at all. “Polls are really a statistical tool which often lack subjective input from users.” This sentence means nothing – you might as well write: “Bananas are a fruit which lack subjective input from berries.” Oh, I know what Zero means, but polls aren't designed to gather “subjective input.” Polls are quick, cheap ways of testing the waters via a (hopefully) well designed random sample. (There are other research methods, however, that are very good at collecting “subjective input,” and personal accounts as well – they just cost more and take longer.) Then Zero seemingly fails to distinguish between online polls (which are really just for entertainment purposes) and real polls (which are only half or three-quarters oriented towards entertainment): “The general flaw of this medium is the fact that a poll is often guided by the objectives of the pollsters. Online polls present an additional challenge in that the audience and security of the poll become obstacles in the collection of good data.” In defense of pollsters, I will say that they are as opinionated and biased as anybody else. Which is why the good ones pre-test their research materials extensively. What interested me was the section on page 3 which essentially said that discussion sites could replace polls and focus groups (“The content provided by discussion forums is unique because it offers a sampling of both opinion data (from a polling perspective) as well as traditional information content, much like a focus group.&#8221) To anybody who's ever overseen a focus group or worked on polling, this is an odd statement. Because demographics are everything. By the way, I'm not trying to revert to petty criticisms or anything like that. When you say: “I was about to go where you went in the criticism, but the data is indeed a fertile ground for "opinion mining,'” I simply disagree: In research terms “opinion mining” means virtually nothing. We're talking about desk research, which is nothing new, and which is a standard part of any of any study: it's usually the first stage. "Clearly, as you point out, it's no place to get comparative data about the opinions of various demographic groups. But if you are looking for opinions and ideas in and of themselves, the forum archives are a good resource." Yeah - it's great for desk research. I think Zero is striving for something greater - and not solely in research terms. By the way, Zero: your moniker really bothers me (I take it that you haven't met many metal workers....). But I'm still looking forward to Part II.
Top

#1053 - 03-29-02 08:51 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Anonymous Anonymous Unregistered	Very good article, Zero. It almost reads like a doctoral dissertation proposal. Could it be?
Top

#1054 - 03-29-02 10:17 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
american woman american woman Moderator Magnifique Registered: 11-10-01 Posts: 4484 Loc: San Diego	Urban, fair points. I didn't read that zero was arguing that discussion data could replace poll data, or that it was even the same thing. But you're right, zero needs to clean up the descriptions of the concepts he's presenting. Discussion content, such as it is, does nothing “from a polling perspective”. Online polls are pointless in gauging anything about public opinion. As for the point about opinion mining, (“In research terms “opinion mining” means virtually nothing”) I wasn’t thinking of value in terms of research. I meant value in terms of, for example, “I want to see if there are any good ideas about how we can simplify taxes.” I suppose this is not unlike the first-stage desk research you mention. But I think that from a research perspective, discussion forums could be interesting sociology studies. You could quantify the participant demographics, but obviously you need more than the discussion data to do it. (Add a demographic survey to your study, recognize the limitations: self-selection, deception … ) In the end, it seems to me one could devise methods to make it worthwhile. Who knows, maybe the best you’ll do is find out that you can’t.
Top

#1055 - 03-30-02 06:04 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
UrbanEnnui UrbanEnnui Member Registered: 07-17-01 Posts: 1012	American Woman – the points Zero raised regarding research and the internet have been gone over and over in the research community. I know one woman who has published some research papers based on studies of chat groups and discussion boards, but her data was pretty weak and highly subjective, so her results didn't get much notice. (Her area of study had something to do with equality – basically she found that groups that were marginalized in real life were also marginalized in cyber space. I can try to dig up her website if you're interested.) I want to see where Zero's going with this. His site is certainly one of the more sophisticated and varied ones out there, and so his opinion is important. The problem is that so many people from so many fields have held extraordinarily high hopes for meshing their area with the World Wide Web… And like spectators from most professions, researchers have been fairly disappointed. (Social researchers, especially.) To try to glean information from a site like this would be like observing a group of monkeys. Except that all the monkeys would look exactly alike, and you had no information on any individual monkey. Worse yet, some of the monkeys would take on the habits or patterns of another in order to fool you. I very much want to see this issue pushed further because more and more of us are spending greater amounts of time online and there is too little data and information regarding not only this trend but also what we do when we are on the internet. I think a modified content analysis approach could work for a site like CG, provided that limited emphasis was placed on actual users; i.e. you'd have to treat each response (post) as unique. That'd be a bitch to analyze though… BTW, great post.
Top

#1056 - 04-01-02 02:52 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	I appreciate everyone's feedback. In reference to polling research vs. Internet forum data, I was referring mainly to online polls. I will address these points in greater depth later on.
Top

#1057 - 04-01-02 03:45 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Anonymous Anonymous Unregistered	I hope that in looking at spin on the internet, you compare and contrast it with that of the main stream media and the demagogery that passes for news on the radio. Far too often mainstream news parrots the spin of political operatives from the White House or even gossip sites like Drudge on the Web. I believe the reason that the internet is growing so rapidly, especially among progressives, is an awareness that the major media outlets, as well as Democratic politicians do a poor job of representing or advancing liberal viewpoints. I would like to see a study which looks at where the American public gets its information about specific political matters and analyzes the data presented on those sites according to whether it was presented in a left, right or middle road position. This however probably couldn't accurately assess or weigh the impact that even brief contact with hugely biased information would have on the consumers of such news. In other words, if a consumer mostly got his news about campaign finance reform from CNN, but also listened to the howling lunacy from Rush on the same subject, it could have a dramatic impact on their perception of the issues in question. The internet for all of its faults and limitations, greatly increases circulation of political news which the mainstream frequently underreports. It at leasts give us more of a choice about the spin we expose ourselves to.
Top

#1058 - 04-01-02 04:54 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Ferry Fey Ferry Fey Member Registered: 08-21-01 Posts: 2062	I think it is important to stress that the vast majority of online polls I've run into are utter junk, statistically speaking. Most don't even have mechanisms to keep votes limited to one per customer, and "fr33ping" of the votes is common on issues. One thing I do find different about Capitol Grilling is the passivity regarding Web utilization by its regulars, compared to other areas in which I post. I post in an area of the sciences where almost everyone who regularly contributes to the conversations has a few pages up on the web, and many have pages that have involved quite a bit of research. I post in religious forums where many of us have websites, and many of us have had our work published in hard copy. I've been working on putting together one substantial website in the field of religious and racial bias, where I've got 25 web pages ready to go up one of these days. I'm actively involved in a local political campaign, and run its private online forum. I've got another good-sized website on another quite different subject. Like many online friends of mine, I moderate a few private forums and have a fairly substantial web presence. But it puzzles me that I never hear anyone here talking about having their own web pages, let alone being involved in political work other than as a job. Only person I can recall mentioning their own web pages is NJCher. It can't be just the anonymity factor, since even if your web pages are under your own name on the web and you are anonymous here for security reasons, there are ways of directing people to your site. Compared to the other areas in which I post, Capitol Grilling seems to have far fewer people who create independent content outside of their postings here. I don't know if it is something endemic to political websites, or what the difference is.
Top

#1059 - 04-02-02 12:56 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
UrbanEnnui UrbanEnnui Member Registered: 07-17-01 Posts: 1012	"...In reference to polling research vs. Internet forum data, I was referring mainly to online polls.... Thank you for the clarification. Because you referred to polling research and forum data in the same context as focus groups, I assumed that you were writing about real research. Online polls are merely devices to encourage viewer interaction and interest in the site; in other words, they serve entertainment purposes first and foremost. Personally, I don't think they are even worth discussing. The first part of your essay did stress both the inherent and potential value of discussion forums for sociopolitical researchers. My impression was that you were, in a way, outlining your philosophy regarding discussion forums in general and this board in particular; your stance regarding same topic multiple threads, the archives, etc. illustrates that you are hoping to preserve real time reactions in a concise manner that could be later accessed for information gathering purposes. Meanwhile, I was simply trying to outline some of the limitations that a forum such as CG would pose to a researcher. Here's an example: I did a quick and silly content analysis of a thread here. I picked “The liberal media myth won't die” when it was at 26 posts; I chose this one somewhat by random. Meaning that it was a thread I hadn't read, it was short, and, at a glance, it looked like a somewhat diverse thread in terms of partisan-oriented participants. Methodology: Six words or phrases were selected for analysis. These were: Bush (meaning the current president; other references to this individual, such as “Shrub,” were included), Clinton (meaning the former president; other references to this individual, such as “Bubba,” were included), Republican (including phrases referring to republicans or the republican party, but not including phrases such as “righties” or “right-wingers&#8221 , Democrat (including phrases referring to democrats or the democratic party, but not including phrases such as “lefties” or “left-wingers), Liberal, and Conservative. The analysis did not count each actual mention, but instead noted each individual mention within a sentence or distinctly expressed notion. Content quoted from previous posters' replies or other sources was disregarded. *The words or phrases are listed below according to the number of distinct* mentions: 24 Liberal 8 Democrat 7 Clinton 5 Bush 4 Conservative 3 Republican In addition to noting the number of mentions, the tone of mentioning was also recorded on a five-point scale (1=Very negative – 5=Very positive). The analyzed words or phrases are listed below according to average tone of mention: 4.1 Clinton 3.6 Bush 2.7 Republicans 2.5 Democrats 2.2 Liberals 2.0 Conservatives Main themes raised in the content:** The partisan composite of the American population The role of polling according to partisan goals The philosophical and emotional divide between supporters of Bush/Republicans and Clinton/Democrats The general lack of trust regarding mass media The belief that one's perspective is not being fairly represented A general sense of angst towards oppositional figures or viewpoints None of this means anything because a) I didn't recheck my findings (which should always be done), b) I had no main topic of study to work with, and c) the whole thing was really random and goofy. But otherwise I did use standard methods…. Now, the “data” above could be integrated and analyzed further, but I was just trying to show you the limitations that a serious researcher would encounter when faced with a site such as CG. At the same time, I'm saying that the potential is there. It would just have to be much, much more sophisticated than my 15-minute scan of that thread. In case I didn't mention it before, I really enjoyed your take on the art of “spinning.” Especially the part about how important it is that the spin be convincing….
Top

#1060 - 04-02-02 05:23 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	I also don't think online polls are in any way valid but I will note that major media outlets often reference the polls on their sites in their broadcasts which I think is very misleading regardless of whether a disclaimer is provided or not. With regards to the value of forum data for research, I was not referring to hard statistical calculations and methodology used in offline polling. Your sample clearly demonstrates the limitations of such methods in the case of online forums. I think better examples would be the range of WTC threads listed in the below links. The thread you sampled would not typically make it into the archive for various reasons, one being excessive spin and a somewhat abstract concept of media bias rather than a specific political event or topic. This forum generates, and will generate over time more specific discussion relating to specific incidents of media bias by specific outlets. I think those threads are better examples to work from individually. A researcher can then aggregate those specific threads to sample opinions and cultural trends. If you haven't had an opportunity to browse through the forum archives, I would encourage you to do so. It could provide some insight into what content gets archived here at CG. http://www.capitolgrilling.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi Here is where our opinions may diverge regarding forum data vs. offline polling data. Regardless of the extent of research and statistical data that can be gleaned from offline polling, it remains guided research and the data is essentially statistical. In other words, it may be a more accurate sampling of opinion in terms of percentages and numbers, but fails to provide real depth into the reason for the range of opinions sampled. In other words, its a great format for census data and single issue national polls, but ill suited for deconstructing opinion for literary rather than statistical purposes. As an example, if I were writing a book on September 11, I would glean a greater amount of depth from the WTC threads than from any offline polls conducted on various opinions in America regarding aspects of the tragedy. In this scenario, discussion forum data "freeze frames" human emotions and thought for a given time in history. Essentially, a researcher can relive the moment with a segment of the population (however skewed and unrepresentative that segment may be) and explore their thoughts and reactions in great depth. It is fascinating to contemplate the type of data we would have access to if the Internet and discussion forums existed throughout history. Imagine forum archives existed for the period our founding fathers were writing the Constitution. Even if those involved in discussion were average citizens or unrepresentative of the general population from a statistical viewpoint, the data and experience of re-living the period would be a tremendous experience that could not be attained by uncovering personal diaries, letters or other historical documents from that time period. September 11 threads: (beginning at the bottom of the first page) http://www.capitolgrilling.com/cgi-bin/ub bcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=3&hardset=1000&start_point=360 http://www.capitolgrilling.com/cgi-bin/ub bcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=3&hardset=1000&start_point=400
Top

#1061 - 04-02-02 07:33 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
UrbanEnnui UrbanEnnui Member Registered: 07-17-01 Posts: 1012	"....Here is where our opinions may diverge regarding forum data vs. offline polling data. Regardless of the extent of research and statistical data that can be gleaned from offline polling, it remains guided research and the data is essentially statistical...." We disagree here but only somewhat. To make things a bit clearer I would prefer to drop the term “poll,” because, though its actual meaning is broad, to most people it generally means quick political surveys. I'd rather use the word “study,” or “survey.” In all kinds of research there are two basic types of studies: quantitative and qualitative. In simplistic terms, political surveys and censuses are quantitative, while focus groups and the kind of desk research that you suggest the 9/11 threads might be good for would be qualitative research. (And, to get really nitpicky, most of the quantitative survey results that you see are not even remotely statistical – they rarely employ anything more tricky than basic 5th grade mathematics.) Complex and expensive studies sometimes employ both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, but you don't usually see those kinds of studies written up in newspaper headlines. In other words, “offline” studies can indeed “provide real depth into the reason for the range of opinions sampled,” either through well designed survey instruments, in-depth interviews, focus groups, or a combination these things and more. The real-time reactions recorded in the 9/11 do offer something very special (and very disquieting). To say that these threads offer future informational value is completely valid. That the first one starts off by noting that a plane has crashed into the World Trade Center, and then the poster, the thread starter, feels the need to stress that he or she is not joking…. To me that is a perfect snippet of the kind of shock and disbelief that most observers felt in the first minutes. Then follows something like excitement, after the realization that something big was happening sunk in but well before the reality of the catastrophe struck home. After that the thread becomes somewhat chaotic, with many different ideas and viewpoints emerging, as different people express different concerns and degrees of grief. (I'm recalling this from memory because I'm not in the mood to back to that thread right now, but I did reread it from the archives a few months ago – forgive me if I've gotten the details wrong.) To continue, if you were writing a book on 9/11, those threads would undoubtedly prove to be a much more interesting source of information than any quick surveys done at the time (after all, what good is knowing that 97%, or whatever, condemned the attack?). But you might also want to look into any professionally conducted in-depth interviews related to 9/11, or data gathered from survivors, or any number of “offline” sources. This does not discredit the value of the online sources of information; it merely indicates that online data is still primarily of value in terms of desk research, which is an old, pre-internet standard procedure for any kind of research. Does the internet enable greater variety and diversity in this regard? Yes, of course. But methodologically nothing has changed. You write that it would be “fascinating to contemplate the type of data we would have access to if the Internet and discussion forums existed throughout history.” I agree, though I also think that we would be subjected to wading through a lot of arcane and nonsensical flame wars if our founders had had the internet. Some lament that modern thinkers no longer keep notes or journals; instead we have the instant email or bulletin board. I think the more info the merrier, but that's just me. Still, the quality of the content is always of significance. As to my sample study, I should've more specifically emphasized that I picked that thread because it was short. And because the topic didn't interest me at all (i.e. I was *unbiased*). Just joking – but obviously it would take more than 15 minutes (and more than 26 posts) to gather some interesting findings. I am very interested in looking at how the internet can be used as a research tool, but I think the existing models, though efficient, are somehow lacking. Online polling is a joke and virtually everything else falls under the category of desk research, so the question is how to capitalize on this new resource…. Incidentally, the CG archives are quite good. Ironically enough, I've only gone through them in search of some bit of info that I knew I had seen posted months earlier. So, I suppose they are a rather good source of information.
Top

#1062 - 04-02-02 08:40 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	I think if research can incorporate offline surveys and online research mined from forums we can end up with a Star Trek Holodeck form of historical archiving and multimedia manipulation of data. Add three dimensional rendering, some good actors and computer generated interactive features standard in the gaming world (a la Civilization II or SimCity) and we end up with a truly virtual reality method of packaging and presenting information. Naturally, I am getting a little carried away but the existing technology is ripe for use in other applications beyond gaming utilizing an evolved AI function In this scenario, I believe that discussion forums provide a unique segment of the data needed for the overall presentation. Offline comprehensive surveys, televised interviews, news reports, published articles and books makeup the remaining pieces for the puzzle.
Top

#1063 - 04-04-02 08:26 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Anonymous Anonymous Unregistered	Rats. You got me all excited thinking that Part 2 was ready. I liked Part 1, by the way, but agree with most of what Ms. UrbanE had to say about the polls, and lack of any system for gauging opinion on the internet. Forums like this are not screened and deliberately arranged focus groups/demographic cross sections addressing carefully formulated concerns. They're primarily entertainment, in my opinion; and when they cease to be fun, they cease to matter.
Top

#1064 - 04-04-02 08:30 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	It will be a while before part II is released. That shouldn't however impede the discussion as I often use the discussion forum to bounce thoughts that later get incorporated into articles This specific article actually has seven segments, but only 3 will be published online.
Top

#1065 - 04-04-02 09:34 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
american woman american woman Moderator Magnifique Registered: 11-10-01 Posts: 4484 Loc: San Diego	Oh man! You had me going with that SimCapitolCity holodeck thingy. Do you have a basic outline for the seven segments that you can share?
Top

#1066 - 10-08-02 12:29 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	Originally posted by the Real Fifi All the News That's Fit to Spin The New York Times outdoes itself as editorial creep continues across the front page of the paper. by David Tell 10/08/2002 12:00:00 AM David Tell, opinion editor THE NEW YORK TIMES has lately come under a barrage of media criticism, not all of it from "the right," about the extent to which editorial bias has infected the paper's hard news columns. And already some of that criticism has been directed specifically against the paper's A-section reporting on its own, proprietary public opinion research (commissioned in partnership with CBS News). So what I'm about to offer isn't exactly without precedent. The bias in question, however, may well be without precedent; I can't remember anything quite like it, at least. "Poll Says Bush Needs to Pay Heed to Weak Economy," written up by Times correspondents Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder, and awarded pride of place--the front-page lede--in yesterday morning's edition, isn't just slanted (or misleading or imbalanced or overstated or any other word commonly applied to such things). The story is an outright fraud, a falsehood, a work of fiction. But I'm getting ahead of myself. In their most recent effort to limn what the "public says," Times/CBS News researchers have surveyed 668 Americans (over three days, October 3-5). And from the resulting Times story, you'd think all 668 of those Americans have said the same thing, over and over again. "Public Says Bush . . ." has a single theme, introduced immediately in the sub-heds ("Many Fear Loss of Jobs; Poll Finds Lawmakers Focusing Too Much on Iraq and Too Little on Issues at Home") and then hammered away relentlessly over the 33 paragraphs--plus boxed chart--that follow. "A majority of Americans say [sic] that . . . President Bush and congressional leaders are spending too much time talking about Iraq while neglecting problems at home," Nagourney and Elder advise us in their first sentence. No hard numbers in support of this judgment appear on page one, but just before the story makes its jump to page A14, we do get to meet 42-year-old Gladys Steele of Seattle, identified as a "politically independent" homemaker. Ms. Steele, speaking as Everywoman, apparently, says "Bush is spending way too much time focusing on Iraq instead of the economy, and he's doing it as a political move." After the jump, Nagourney and Elder remind us that Democrats have "grown glum about the upcoming election," imagining that the Bush White House has "successfully drowned out domestic issues"--read: Democratic issues--with all this talk of war. "But," the authors continue, the new Times/CBS poll "suggests" that voters are actually "more concerned about the economy and domestic issues than with what is happening with Saddam Hussein, presenting the Democrats a glimmer of hope." Here, too, no statistical substantiation is offered for this conclusion, though we're led to believe one does exist: "On a number of measures, the poll suggested that politicians in Washington were out of step with the concerns of Americans. Again and again, in questions and in follow-up interviews, respondents talked more about the economy than Baghdad and expressed concern that leaders in Washington were not paying enough attention to the issues that mattered to them." Along with Gladys Steele, Nagourney and Elder mention two other Americans who think Congress and the president should de-emphasize foreign policy in favor of home-front economic security. Michael Chen, a 30-year-old independent in Beaverton, Oregon, says "There is no balance right now. . . . No one is talking about how to solve the economic downfall." And another independent, 44-year-old Geoff Crooks of Lincoln, Nebraska, says "We are paying way too much attention to Iraq." That's it. Three named poll respondents who believe Washington policymaking is shortchanging economic matters in favor of the war on terrorism. And two New York Times reporters (seconded by their headline-writing editors) who say a "majority of Americans" agrees with those respondents. But nowhere in 33 paragraphs is there a single corroborating reference to a single statistical breakdown of answers to a single specific question in the Times/CBS poll. Which, after all, is what the entire story pretends to be about. Odd, no? The Times appears disinclined to help anybody look into this mystery; its website simply reprints the Nagourney/Elder story without elaboration. But CBS News, which has reported the same poll with a great deal more circumspection, and therefore has less to be embarrassed about, has posted the survey's entire script--along with all the relevant raw numbers (readers with Adobe Acrobat software can see for themselves here . And those numbers, it turns out, say the New York Times has . . . well, lied about its own public opinion research. Three particular subsets of data make this harsh verdict especially hard to avoid: Question Three. "What do you think is the single most important problem for the government--that is, the president and Congress--to address in the coming year?" Nagourney and Elder write that voters answered they are "more concerned about the economy and domestic issues than with what is happening to Saddam Hussein." In fact, however, Times/CBS poll respondents identified "Terrorism/War/Security" as the one "most important problem" facing government (30 percent), with "Economy/Jobs/Stock Market" ranking second (26 percent). And even this result understates the truth: Listed third among the responses is an additional foreign policy category, "Iraq" (7 percent)--which means that voters principally concerned with international matters outnumber those who prefer to think about issues that "Democrats had hoped to capitalize on" by an almost 3-to-2 margin. Question Eighteen. "Which of these should be the higher priority for the nation right now--the economy and jobs, or terrorism and national security?" This, of course, is simply a forced-choice restatement of the more open-ended Question Three, above. And its results therefore speak more directly to the conclusion suggested by the Times' front-page sub-hed: "Poll Finds Lawmakers Focusing Too Much on Iraq and Too Little on Issues at Home." Trouble is, Question Eighteen's results flatly contradict that sub-hed. A full 50 percent of respondents said terrorism should be a higher priority than the economy. And only 35 percent said the opposite--again, a nearly 3-to-2 preference for foreign policy. Question Twenty-Nine. "In deciding how to spend their time, presidents have to weigh the importance of foreign policy problems and problems here at home. Given the importance of each, do you think George W. Bush has been spending too much time on foreign policy problems, OR too much time on problems here at home, OR has he been spending his time about right?" According to the Times, which ran it as a five-column headline across the top of page A14 yesterday, the answer is clear: "Public Says Bush Needs to Pay More Heed to Economy, Less to Iraq." Unfortunately, though, Actual Results Prove Times Account of Poll Dishonest. A majority of respondents (52 percent) told Times/CBS researchers they think the president is dividing his attention "about right" and another two percent complained that Bush spends too much time on domestic issues. Only 41 percent of respondents said they think the president overemphasizes foreign policy. Among key, swing-voting independents, the trend is even starker: 58 percent of respondents said they believe the president devotes enough or too much effort to domestic questions, while just 35 percent complained that he is neglecting them. All the news that fits the spin. And the rest in a PDF file on the CBS News website where, with any luck, nobody will notice it. David Tell is opinion editor of The Weekly Standard.
Top

#1067 - 10-19-02 10:03 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	Originally posted by Toxteth O'Grady The art of poll-taking has always been part science, part art and part black magic. The ability of pollsters to divine the soul of the electorate is crucial to the campaigns, and this year the electorate appears to again be closely divided, as it was in 2000. However, the 2000 races proved the pollsters to be something quite less than infallible - especially since all but the inestimable Mr. Zogby predicted George Bush would pick up a larger segment of the popular vote than Al Gore and most predicted that more of the electorate would pick Democratic Congressional candidates (the Republicans retained the House, but lost five seats in the Senate). Even Zogby is not infallible; he predicted Gore would take Florida. With ten to twelve Senate seats hotly contested, it is possible for the campaigns on both sides to find polls they like. In Texas, two late September polls contradicted each other, with one putting John Cornyn ahead of Ron Kirk in the Senate race and the other putting Kirk ahead of Cornyn - in both cases by more than the margin of error. Texas was not supposed to be hotly contested, so if divergent polling results are found there, what does it say about places like Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado, which have been up for grabs since Labor Day? So are the pollsters getting it right or wrong this year? And if they're wrong, why can't they reliably predict anymore? The Texas Observer had a recent editorial about the phenomenon and offered some possible reasons why pollsters get it wrong... Poll Pollution ..."Politicians and pollsters must admit the new shortcomings of their once highly reliable polls," writes former political consultant Dick Morris in The Hill. Morris points out that in 2000 almost all of the national polls were wrong in their predictions that W. would garner more votes than Al Gore. Many of those same pollsters predicted a tight Senate race between Rep. Rick Lazio and Hillary Clinton for the open Senate seat in New York. (Clinton won going away, 55 to 43.) He blames inaccurate polling on a general unwillingness of the citizenry to respond to telemarketers. A clear sign of this is the growing popularity of "no-call" laws now embraced by 28 states, including Texas. In-person polling doesn't work as a replacement because it's too expensive and few polling firms are willing to send their workers into the kinds of neighborhoods necessary to get a representative sample. Nor will Internet polling do, because blacks and Latinos are not online in the same numbers as whites. It is also difficult to find reliable lists of voter e-mail addresses.... ....Although internal polling by campaigns can be helpful for judging trends and taking the temperature on issues, it is the newspaper horse race polls that are most problematic. Newspapers love them because they are a cheap, easy way to give the illusion that they have good political coverage. But the danger of relying on polling is that surveys, while often inaccurate, can influence public opinion. The small percentage of the American public who still believe what they read in the media might actually consider the numbers underneath the banner headlines to be true. Most newspaper polling stories don't include lengthy descriptions of the samples or the wording of the questions asked, which might, if properly explained, give the reader a better sense of how reliable they are. Poll results are like any statistical exercise: Strip away the veneer of objectivity, and you'll find a "science" that can be molded to any agenda. Nowhere is this more alarming than in the debate over whether the U.S. should invade Iraq....
Top

#1068 - 10-29-02 12:06 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
toxteth o'grady toxteth o'grady Uncivil Engineer Registered: 10-24-01 Posts: 64784 Loc: At the airport	MIT's political science department has placed some of its classes online, which allows the public to audit their coursework. The following question is from a problem set, but it is germane to this thread. Take a crack at it; the answer is also online. 17.871 Political Science Laboratory, Spring 2002, Problem Set #1 5. In the 2000 presidential election, George W. (Quincy) Bush received 47.9% of the popular vote case in the United States. The following reports the final “horse race” results from the various polls taken right before the election: (All of these results were reported the day before the election) CBS: 44% CNN/Gallup: 48% IBD: 48% Reuters: 46% Voter.com: 50% What accounts for these differences? _________________________ "It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" --Abe Lincoln
Top

#1069 - 10-29-02 12:17 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
tlbshow tlbshow Member Registered: 09-20-04 Posts: 245	So we don't care or we do care about polls?
Top

#1070 - 10-29-02 01:27 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
american woman american woman Moderator Magnifique Registered: 11-10-01 Posts: 4484 Loc: San Diego	Depends on how good the samples are, something rarely discussed in your run-of-the-mill article about the latest poll.
Top

#1071 - 01-22-03 09:50 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	Submitted by Empty Warhead "Astroturfing" , or creating the appearance of an artificial grassroots movement supporting policies when none truely exists....can be evidenced by checking out Google and searching for the phrase "demonstrating genuine leadership". You'll find it returns a number of nearly identical letters sent to the editors of various newspapers and publications , each one with the name of a different individual attached. And it seems like the Bush team has been astroturfing "letters to the editor" from Time to the Green Bay Gazette. Yesterday, I noticed "astroturfing" in the L.A. Times and Philly Inquirer. ...or try the phrase "taking a courageous stand against Saddam"...and see what you get!
Top

#1072 - 01-22-03 11:11 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Anonymous Anonymous Unregistered	Zero, enjoyed the "rant" and look forward to Part Deux. Not sure where you are going with regard to the value of Archived Forum Discussions, but had several thoughts: 1. I really appreciate your effort to archive discussion threads. I agree they will someday be an extremely valuable research tool. Look at how frequently people complain about deletions based on their source value today!! 2. I don't think discussion threads will EVER be valuable as guage of accurate public opinion (like public opinion polling for example), due to easy ability to distort and corrupt results anonymously. 3. Rather, I think they will be valuable from a biographical standpoint . I suspect biographers will start exploring monikers and posts of famous people,sort of like people go back and research the personal diaries and covert notes of Napoleon for example. I bet a biographer or library would pay millions to buy Bill Gates personal PC!!! 4. Just like today, archived threads will provide sources for other links and publications on particular subjects of interest to researchers.
Top

#1073 - 01-22-03 11:24 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Anonymous Anonymous Unregistered	"One thing I do find different about Capitol Grilling is the passivity regarding Web utilization by its regulars, compared to other areas in which I post." ==snip=== "Compared to the other areas in which I post, Capitol Grilling seems to have far fewer people who create independent content outside of their postings here. I don't know if it is something endemic to political websites, or what the difference is. Very salient observations Ferry Fey. My guess is that political content websites are particularly vulnerable to flamers and trollers who attempt to influence opinion--the pscyops types that I suppose that Zero was referencing. Compared to other subject websites. It has been my observation that the most interesting posters on CG are forthcoming, albeit somewhat discreetly, with some personal information. They also seem to have the most interesting posts--less flaming and ideological posts. I have a feeling they are "real people". The "real posters" lose interest and patience with the ideological flamers pretty quickly (at least I do, and I assume this is typical). They either vamoose the site or stick to threads until they become partisan....
Top

#1074 - 01-26-03 01:12 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Anonymous Anonymous Unregistered	re: Astroturfing...should democrats do it, too? Lobbying By Letter A GOP Web site lets supporters send mass-mailings to mainstream media outlets with the click of a mouse By Seth Mnookin NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE snip While the practice is accepted within political circles, some newspaper editors are ticked off about the effort. “It’s dishonest,” says Glenda Buell, the letters editor at The Boston Globe. The Globe ran the “right direction” letter on Dec. 1, and the “genuine leadership” letter on Jan. 12. “The Republicans are trying to manufacture public opinion.” web page
Top

#1075 - 01-26-03 01:34 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Anonymous Anonymous Unregistered	I'm not sure I agree with Brazille on this one. As a grassroots liberal, who would be called on to do such a thing, I have to say that there is a very big difference between trying to control the media with massive email campaigns designed to control public opinion, and those same campaigns aimed at persuading leadership on matters of war, the economy, etc. IMO, letters to the editor should be written by the person expressing the opinion, not cut and pasted from some website and sent in duplicate to newspapers across the country. I see her point, though, that if we don't fight back, the republicans have found yet another way to skew media. IMO, it would seem to be more honest, if the republicans simply stopped doing something so questionable.
Top

#1076 - 01-26-03 03:18 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Ferry Fey Ferry Fey Member Registered: 08-21-01 Posts: 2062	Hepzi, your point above regarding sharing of personal information -- it's probably a good marker that distinguishes a conversation from talking "at" someone. Dialogue vs. monologue. Conversation devoid of "fight or flight" physiological changes. Shows the speaker is a real person, coming from some sort of real-world context that matters enough to them that they brought it up. A note on my last year's comment about posters here usually not mentioning any original content they put up on the web. As someone who runs a couple of small private bulletin boards, I notice that it is still a case of a real chasm between those who have computer literacy skills or web skills of any sort, and those who haven't yet mastered this sort of bulletin board software, which has become far more prevalent in the past year. There are few people who are in the middle, or at least who seem to speak from that position of knowing a bit rather than being a professional. It shows up in little things like being able to correct basic errors in HTML or not, which seems to be giving Zero and the others a little too much extra work. Not that I'm not a techno-moron myself, I just know enough to help those more technically pathetic than I on occasion. Sort of like the barefoot doctor who knows enough to tell the peasants to dig the latrine away from the well, but who you really don't want doing the trepanning. (Ah, where's a good "no trepanning" emoticon when you need it?) Zeroflux, maybe it would be useful to make up a permanent page people can refer back to, that you could plug in the periodic forum updates, modelling exactly how you would like us to deal with things like quotes? Find a short sample set of postings (or make one up), and do one version where the quotes and links and pix are handled correctly, and do another page where it is screwed up. Annotate in red to show on both pages how and why it was done correctly or incorrectly. Make sure everyone checks it out. It would be a lot easier for people to know what specific practices are causing trouble. Some people need to see it right in front of them rather than having it described to them abstractly.
Top

#1077 - 01-26-03 04:04 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Anonymous Anonymous Unregistered	Data mining here can be done very quickly. Whatever gems or nuggets of insight existed, have long since been mined. The positions and reactions of most posters to any subject can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. The topics of threads fit into a few themes and variations, so spin is confined to predictable assertions and responses. Any social engineer using this site as a place for anything new is in the wrong profession. This is a nice spot to rant, and enjoy some peoples' skill at writing and thought. But subtract the thread killing long articles posted, the "you are; no, I'm not, you are" posts and threads, well, the pickings get slim. CG is a place to hang and much better than most, and thanks to Zero and his cohorts for that. Perhaps Zero's grand new design, whatever it may be, can salt this old mine, but the veins are played out. This ain't Placer Place, if it ever was.
Top

#1078 - 01-27-03 04:32 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
SuperTroy SuperTroy Mattress Monkey Registered: 03-21-02 Posts: 24045 Loc: Western Style Handjobs	Editorial on the recent astroturfing incident from an editor of the Bristol Herald Courier... IN ALL, I GOT the same letter from eight people over a week and a half; a couple of the letters did come with an extra sentence. Half were from this area, and half weren't. Out of curiosity, I ran an Internet search to see if any newspapers had actually published the letter. By the middle of last week, at least a dozen had -- including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Boston Globe and even the International Herald Tribune in Paris. That's when I e-mailed our correspondents to ask some questions. Two responded; one informed me that the letter came from the Republican National Committee, which had urged supporters to send the letter as a way to show support for the president's tax-cut package. As of this writing, RNC officials haven't answered my request that they confirm authorship, so I can't say for sure. But I'd bet the farm it wasn't some Democratic group. IN CASE YOU'RE thinking I'm about to start in on the Republicans, you're wrong. This is easily the most blatant example of its kind I've ever run into, but it's far from being the only one. We've received similar letters (or groups of them) on behalf of Republicans, Democrats and candidates in nonpartisan local races. We've even been known to get some highly suspicious correspondence about our more heated local and regional issues. [snip] BUT MOSTLY, it reminds me of some lonely seventh-grader trying to convince his classmates that he's a lot more popular than he really is. Or maybe just someone who's too cheap to buy advertising. What I really don't understand, I guess, is why anyone would go along. One of the two people who wrote me back had a rather seductive explanation: "Consider my submission of the letter as another voice singing the same song." He likes the Bush package exactly as is: "I don't want the Senate to pair off any of it or water it down to suit their own agendas -- this is not a political football issue!" THEN AGAIN, his own words are more compelling than the stilted, predictable rhetoric of the canned letter -- and isn't that the way these things usually work? When you do the writing yourself, you share a little of your own heart and soul with those who read your words. And when you do that, your readers are a lot more likely to take you seriously. -ST _________________________ You can't be first, but you sure as hell can be next, honey - Ric Flair 29th Buddha
Top

#1079 - 01-30-03 05:30 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
SuperTroy SuperTroy Mattress Monkey Registered: 03-21-02 Posts: 24045 Loc: Western Style Handjobs	Don't know if this goes here, but all the talk about polls and polsters on the SOTU thread reminded me of a TAP article on Zogby and why we shouldn't blindly trust him.... In a recent New York Times Magazine cover story about animal rights, journalist Michael Pollan reported that 51 percent of Americans believe that "primates are entitled to the same rights as human children." It was a surprising finding, but one that Pollan simply attributed to a "recent Zogby Poll." When Pollan's article came out, you can only imagine the celebration at the Doris Day Animal League, a group dedicated to establishing legal rights for chimpanzees. The league's role in commissioning the survey went entirely unmentioned in the Times story. By hiring the renowned pollster John Zogby, the group had essentially purchased an objective fact, one that entered into the conventional wisdom via the nation's leading Sunday magazine. Whomever you blame for this small propaganda coup, it's hardly unique. Media coverage of polling results often neglects to mention the self-interestedness of the sponsor, and John Zogby is a leading enabler. Today, Zogby International's polling reputation may be second only to that of the hallowed Gallup Organization, which makes having a Zogby Poll extremely desirable for advocacy groups across the political spectrum. Animal rights is a lefty cause, but one recent Zogby Poll conducted for the libertarian Cato Institute found that "two-thirds of likely voters support personal Social Security accounts" -- i.e., partial privatization. Another, conducted in 1997 for the anti-tort group New Yorkers for Civil Justice Reform, found that Empire State citizens "overwhelmingly believe that the cost of lawsuit awards is too high." And a Newsmax.com/Zogby International Poll, conducted for the right-wing Newsmax Web site, found in late 1999 that two-thirds of Americans wanted Congress to consider a second impeachment proceeding against then-President Clinton. It helped that the poll primed respondents with speculative allegations that the president traded nuclear technology to the Chinese in exchange for campaign cash. What these polls have in common is that they reveal "findings" that their sponsors wish the public to believe as facts. And Zogby's standing as a reputable pollster buys instant credibility. [snip] Indeed, key to Zogby's success is a credulous media, particularly cable news. In the unregulated polling industry, journalists are, by default, the chief arbiters of quality. For years, Zogby has been regularly exalted as "the nation's most accurate pollster," in the words of FOX's Bill O'Reilly -- a distinction Zogby owes to his pinpoint prediction of the 1996 presidential outcome. It doesn't hurt that Zogby is a bright and charming television personality in a polling profession that has its share of geeks. Because Zogby works for both left and right, it's often assumed that he serves the causes of truth and objectivity. Unlike partisan pollsters, who are known for giving their own parties some padding in surveys, Zogby is generally invited on the air without anyone from the "other side" for balance. "I can't think of any pollster other than Zogby who regularly works for people on both sides and is touted by people on both sides," notes University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato. "That's quite an accomplishment. Whether it's good or bad is another question." In the summer of 2001, journalist Cynthia Cooper alleged on Women's eNews that Zogby had conducted a poll for an "unidentified conservative client" that reached the questionable conclusion that a majority of Americans would support legislation requiring welfare recipients to use birth control in order to be eligible for benefits. Cooper also noted that Zogby's refusal to disclose the poll's sponsor violated the American Association for Public Opinion Research's (AAPOR) code of professional ethics and practices. -ST _________________________ You can't be first, but you sure as hell can be next, honey - Ric Flair 29th Buddha
Top

#1080 - 02-16-03 09:24 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	Some insights into the marketing strategy behind Astroturfing: Grand Old Protest By Paul Boutin If you hurry, you can get in on the best giveaway contest since Pepsi Points and that Harrier jet. The Republican National Committee's "online toolbox for Republican activists," GOPTeamLeader.com, awards "GOPoints" to members who sign up and perform grass-roots actions for the party. E-mailing a local newspaper garners you five points, for example, and getting the letter published adds two more. The points are redeemable for hats, bags, jackets, and other swag, all emblazoned with the site's logo. "There is no limit to what you can accomplish, or what you can earn"! Read Full Article
Top

#1081 - 02-16-03 03:07 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Ferry Fey Ferry Fey Member Registered: 08-21-01 Posts: 2062	My god, that was spooky. I see you have to get more than three hundred points just for a beer cooler. That's a whole lot of grunt-work for the cause.
Top

#1082 - 02-16-03 11:48 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
american woman american woman Moderator Magnifique Registered: 11-10-01 Posts: 4484 Loc: San Diego	Yeah, but I kind of liked this suggestion: Instead of getting mad, though, why not get even? An option on the site allows letter-writers to compose and send their own messages in lieu of the canned statements, meaning the technology used to push Bush's agenda can be used to bash it as well. For an ironic Gen X-er, what better reward for e-mailing 100 anti-war letters to the editor than a GOP Team Leader fleece pullover?
Top

#1083 - 03-28-03 05:18 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	I was watching ABC last night and noticed they were showing various polls with no disclosure as to the numbers polled or collection methods used. The margin of error shown was %14.5 It seems odd that a large news channel would even disclose polls with such a large margin of error. One of the "statistics" they showed alleged over %70 of Americans support the war on Iraq.
Top

#1084 - 03-28-03 06:35 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
the Real fifi the Real fifi Member Registered: 01-16-02 Posts: 14036	Fox reported a recent poll saying 78% supported the war.
Top

#1085 - 03-28-03 07:46 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Anonymous Anonymous Unregistered	zero...look at is this way. At least they reported that insane margin of error...... This just in. Faux breaking news reports support for war is 110%.
Top

#1086 - 03-28-03 10:21 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
american woman american woman Moderator Magnifique Registered: 11-10-01 Posts: 4484 Loc: San Diego	Gee, that means they polled (count 'em) 51 people. Depending on how the question is asked, you could probably pull better than 70%, using a decent sample size even. In fact you could probably "report" something like "nearly 100% support the US in the war against Iraq". You get that by asking: "In the conflict between Iraq and the US, do you support Iraq or do you support the US?"
Top

#1087 - 10-14-03 11:15 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	More on the practice of Astroturf: Many soldiers, same letter Newspapers around U.S. get identical missives from Iraq WASHINGTON -- Letters from hometown soldiers describing their successes rebuilding Iraq have been appearing in newspapers across the country as U.S. public opinion on the mission sours. And all the letters are the same. A Gannett News Service search found identical letters from different soldiers with the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, also known as "The Rock," in 11 newspapers, including Snohomish, Wash. The Olympian received two identical letters signed by different hometown soldiers: Spc. Joshua Ackler and Spc. Alex Marois, who is now a sergeant. The paper declined to run either because of a policy not to publish form letters. The five-paragraph letter talks about the soldiers' efforts to re-establish police and fire departments, and build water and sewer plants in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, where the unit is based. "The quality of life and security for the citizens has been largely restored, and we are a large part of why that has happened," the letter reads. It describes people waving at passing troops and children running up to shake their hands and say thank you. It's not clear who wrote the letter or organized sending it to soldiers' hometown papers. Six soldiers reached by GNS directly or through their families said they agreed with the letter's thrust. But none of the soldiers said he wrote it, and one said he didn't even sign it. Read Full Article
Top

#1088 - 10-14-03 12:04 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	Soldiers’s Glowing Accounts of Success in Iraq Success Were Written by Commander Oct. 13 — The letters appeared in roughly 12 newspapers across the country. From Massachusetts to California, and many places in between, family members and local newspapers received letters from soldiers of the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Infantry Regiment detailing their successes in northern Iraq. Each letter was signed by a different soldier, but the words were identical: "Kirkuk is a hot and dusty city of just over a million people. The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms. After nearly five months here, the people still come running from their homes, into the 110-degree heat, waving to us as our troops drive by on daily patrols of the city. Children smile and run up to shake hands and in their broken English shouting, "Thank you, Mister." Amy Connell, of Sharon, Mass., knew as soon as she received the letter from her son Adam that he did not write it. "He's 20 years old and I don't think his language or his writing ability would have entailed that kind of description," she said. She was right. Her son didn't write the letter. In an e-mail to ABCNEWS today, the commander of the battalion, Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo, said the "letter-writing initiative" was all his idea. Caraccilo said he circulated the form letter to his soldiers to give them "an opportunity to let their respective hometowns know what they are accomplishing here in Kirkuk. As you might expect, they are working at an extremely fast pace and getting the good news back home is not always easy. We thought it would be a good idea to encapsulate what we as a battalion have accomplished since arriving Iraq and share that pride with people back home." Read Full Article
Top

#1089 - 11-09-03 09:10 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	Originally posted by Toxteth O'Grady Who Influences You? Who influences you? According to Ketchum Online Media, which has staked its business reputation on spotting trends and developing product sales strategies on their basis, people are not inclined to be swayed by mass marketing when choosing a product or service. These days, says Chris Atkins of the company, there is a small group of 'influencers' whose recommendations people tend to trust implicitly, especially on things such as which car or computer to buy, or perhaps which candidate to vote for in the next election. It is this latter idea that could shape political campaigns in the future. Maybe a big television ad blitz will get your candidate elected, but what if you could bend the ear of an influential blogger and get him to say something nice about Candidate A who's running for dogcatcher? How many bonus points would Howard Dean get among Grillsters if, say, WalkerTom announced tomorrow that Dean was his man? Ponder this question while you listen to Tox\'s neat little radio station on LAUNCHCast by Yahoo (he'd want you to... ) PS - There's probably good money to be made as a professional influencer. It's almost as good as the money song-pluggers used to make... 100 Influencers in 100 Days When the British readied their march on the New England colonies, Paul Revere and William Dawes were sent by horseback to alert the towns and the leaders of the fledgling independence movement. Revere, a silversmith who knew practically everyone of note in the region, was far more successful in spreading the word than was Dawes, who had few social skills. So it is with "people of influence." They carry enormous credibility and influence. That is why when a company needs to reposition itself or a product rapidly, it should call upon the relatively small group of powerful people whose expertise and objectivity provide greater credibility than a company has itself. Most companies can identify many of these influencers, but they also overlook many other important people. Ketchum has developed a reputation-management tool called "100 Influencers in 100 Days" designed to harness the "power of influence." It reinforces the traditional approach of proactive media relation's efforts, which can be inadequate by itself. Developing a major story takes time and effort and, if it appears, the story still has little leverage. Building the next big story is just as hard as the first. The "Influencer" program is quick to implement and can yield speedy and lasting results; it produces leverage by creating concentric circles of awareness, and it delivers immediate and obvious value. "If this influential group of diverse members understands and supports a company's vision and strategy, its individual members become advocates for the company and carry enormous clout," says Christopher Atkins, a Ketchum partner, director of the Global Corporate Practice, and founder of the Ketchum Reputation Laboratory....
Top

#1090 - 02-09-04 01:27 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	I wonder if some of the blogs sprouting online are actually run by paid hacks assigned to get out a certain viewpoint or message to their "assigned" sphere of blogs. Interesting article from the Washington Post on the political blog phenomenon. Beltway Bloggers Personal Politics Turn Communal on a Web of Local Internet Sites When the D.C. Council held a public hearing on the proposed smoking ban for District bars and restaurants, more than a hundred people showed up to voice their opinions. Ban the Ban, a group organized by local bloggers, brought 25 people to testify on that December workday. Zoe Mitchell, who led the online campaign, says the Ban the Ban turnout that day is proof that blogs are more than a wasteland of rhetoric. A veteran protester at 23, Mitchell has stormed congressional offices, marched against the war in Iraq and traveled the country attending anti-globalization rallies. She is trying to change the world; she believes that keeping a blog, a kind of online diary, will help. Washington's blogsphere is a galaxy of local Web writers who are tied to their computers and to their connections with each other. There are plenty of gossipy teen blogs and "what-I-had-for-lunch" journals, but like the city itself, Washington's blog scene has a strong base of politicos. Surfing through directories of Washington bloggers (several exist, including DCbloggers.com and the DC Metro Blog Map, a site that lists bloggers according to the nearest Metro stop) it is hard to miss the preponderance of politically charged blogs. Dedicated, like-minded bloggers have even founded circles of sites that link to one another and discuss similar topics. The Beltway Bloggers fall to the right. The Cato Blog Mafia consists of current and former employees of the Cato Institute. There are wonkish policy blogs, environmental blogs and libertarian blogs. Blogs that promoted the DC primary and track happenings in District education. Read Full Article
Top

#1091 - 02-19-04 12:00 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Kinky Plexiglass Kinky Plexiglass Hard Plastic Registered: 02-05-02 Posts: 130 Loc: Bethesda, MD	Blogs Pump Bucks Into Campaigns Not even his own staff would call Democratic congressional candidate Ben Chandler a nethead. "He uses the Internet almost exclusively for fantasy baseball," said campaign spokesman Jason Sauer, who added that he wasn't sure whether, until recently, Chandler even knew what a blog was. But that was before Chandler's campaign turned a $2,000 investment in blog advertising into over $80,000 in donations in only two weeks. Chandler -- who won a seat in the House of Representatives Tuesday evening -- definitely knows what a blog is now, Sauer said. "It's that thing that brings in money." Political blog advertising represents the latest twist on the Internet fund-raising strategy pioneered by the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, which raised millions of grass-roots dollars from its Blog for America website. Chandler's campaign is the first of several that have started advertising on political blogs as a cost-effective way to reach a national audience. But even as campaigns queue up to place ads on the most popular sites, and political bloggers seem poised to reap an election-year windfall, some warn that politicians should not expect blog ads to translate automatically into dollars. source
Top

#1092 - 02-22-04 08:55 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	Manufacturing McDonald's? Washington -- White House economists wonder whether hamburger flippers at fast-food restaurants should be considered manufacturers. Not a chance, said Edson Pardo, manager of the McDonald's around the corner from the White House. "We don't flip hamburgers," he said. "We just heat them up." President George W. Bush raised the issue in his annual economic report. In the report last week, Bush's chief economic adviser N. Gregory Mankiw called the definition "somewhat blurry" and asked whether it should be changed. "When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?" For an administration that has seen 2.6 million manufacturing jobs vanish since January 2001, raising the possibility of changing how manufacturing jobs are classified has provoked a sharp response, especially in an election year. When Mankiw's remarks came out this week, Democrats had a field day. "If fast food is classified as manufacturing, perhaps the neighborhood lemonade stand should be considered part of the military-industrial complex," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). Full Article
Top

#1093 - 06-16-04 11:34 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	Very interesting article from today's Washington Post dealing with the more general topic of campaign advertising and grassroots advocacy. Bold emphasis mine. Voters Are Harder to Reach As Media Outlets Multiply As a political ad specialist in the 1990s, Jim Margolis followed a simple rule of thumb: To ensure that would-be voters saw and remembered his candidate's television commercials, Margolis ran each ad at least five times. -snip- The problem may be most acute on television -- the medium of choice for political advertising over the past 50 years -- but the alternatives are not much better. No matter where political consultants turn these days -- to the mail, the phones, the Internet and polls -- the story is much the same. Each message channel is more crowded, and hence less effective, in reaching people than in preceding elections. As veteran Democratic direct-mail specialist Hal Malchow puts it, "all media for communicating with voters are in trouble." -snip- Malchow's Republican counterpart, Richard A. Viguerie, has watched the cost of sending candidate fundraising letters soar over the past four decades, even as response rates have remained flat. He thinks he knows why. "People used to go to their mailboxes and get maybe one or two appeals" from candidates and nonprofit causes, says Viguerie, who helped build the modern conservative movement with his fundraising acumen. "Now it's five or 10 a day. . . . When I first got started, people complained about getting so much mail. That was a fraction of what they get now." -snip- Given that people who do not answer their phone or cannot be reached may hold very different opinions than those who do, pollsters worry that they are reaching increasingly less representative samples of the public, potentially skewing a poll's results, Zukin says. The most obvious upshot of these diminishing returns is that it has become much more expensive to run a political campaign. Reaching distracted TV viewers with an ad 12 times obviously costs more than reaching them five times. Similarly, calling 6,000 phone numbers to get a few hundred useable responses -- as many pollsters do -- is costlier than a conducting a poll that elicits a more efficient response. Political consultants compare rising media costs to an arms race, as ever-greater sums produce messages that reach fewer and fewer eyes and ears. Read Full Article
Top

#1094 - 06-16-04 12:41 PM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Anonymous Anonymous Unregistered	Here are 3 "On The Media" stories relating to how the media has and is manipulated by the political spinners and in one 9/11-related cause, the DOJ: Hot to Handle The Reagan presidency was famous for its declaration of morning in America, no matter what time of day it was. And the man in charge of reminding the public that the sun was always on the horizon was Reagan's longtime deputy chief of staff Michael Deaver. In early 2001, Deaver told Bob about the techniques he used to shape the media coverage of his boss. Keep it Covert In 1982, The New York Times reported on a massacre that had taken place at the hands of American-trained counterinsurgency forces in the Salvadoran village of El Mozote. But the Reagan administration insisted that no massacre had taken place, and eventually The Times, under pressure from the administration, reassigned the reporter who had broken the story. Journalist Robert Parry, who first reported many aspects of the Iran-Contra Affair, tells Brooke that it was just one example of how the Reagan administration discouraged unfavorable coverage of its policies in Central America. Don't Shoot the Translator In a closed session with the 9/11 Commission, a former FBI translator named Sibel Edmonds reportedly made an explosive charge. She described documents that crossed her desk in the summer of 2001, detailing plans for an Al Qaeda attack on U.S. skyscrapers with hijacked airplanes. Her allegations were picked up by news media throughout the world, but hardly at all in the U.S. And the Justice Department is doing its best to keep it that way. It has blocked Edmonds from testifying in a 9/11-related lawsuit, and this week took the rare step of retroactively classifying records about her given to Congress two years ago. Bob talks to washingtonpost.com staff writer Jefferson Morley about the Edmonds story. http://www.wnyc.org./onthemedia/otm061104.html
Top

#1095 - 10-19-04 11:35 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
Fish Boner Fish Boner Junior Member Registered: 10-02-01 Posts: 160 Loc: Newark, New Jersey	Not sure if this article belongs here... it should be relevent though to the topic of political activism... Liberal Praise Drawn From Unlikely Source Few people are as closely identified with the right wing of the political spectrum as Richard A. Viguerie. In nearly four decades of six-day-a-week labors, the pioneer of direct-mail rabble-rousing has helped create hundreds of organizations -- including Gun Owners of America, the National Right to Work Foundation and the National Conservative Political Action Committee -- and was instrumental in electing such noted and controversial conservatives as Jesse Helms and Bob Dornan. He's been called "the funding father of the conservative movement." Then why is he saying such nice things about liberals? The reason, Viguerie says, is that facts are facts: When it comes to stirring up the masses, the political left is doing a better job than the right in getting its message across. The 71-year-old ideological warrior believes that left-leaning groups are miles ahead in using the world's most powerful and efficient marketing tool -- the Internet -- for political advocacy. And as remarkable as it sounds, he also says that the left has eclipsed the right in Viguerie's own specialty, direct mail.
Top

#1096 - 11-16-04 10:28 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	Very interesting segment in yesterday's edition of the Washington Post K Street Confidential... Highlighted segments bring us back to the original topic of this thread: polls as an advocacy tool meant to influence opinion rather than represent it. Bold emphasis mine. Political Pollsters Don't Live on Elections Alone By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum Monday, November 15, 2004; Page E01 If you're tired of all those candidate polls after the long election season, you aren't alone. So are the pollsters. As a result, firms that conduct public opinion surveys for politicians are increasingly trying their hand at something else: lobbying. Not traditional lobbying. They don't run to Capitol Hill to twist arms. But they do accept private-sector clients -- corporations and interest groups -- who pay them to take the public's temperature on issues that they want Congress to pass. In turn, these clients use the results to support their case. This kind of information is central to what lobbying is really about these days: persuading legislators that voters really care. Years ago, laws were written by a handful of powerful people who didn't worry much what citizens thought. Nowadays, power is much more diffuse and politicians listen attentively to what their constituents say for fear of losing their seats. So lobbying campaigns usually include at least one poll that purports to show that voters agree entirely with whatever the interest group is pushing. If this sounds like a racket, it is. Polls can come to practically any conclusion depending on how the questions are asked. But that hasn't slowed the practice. In fact, it's growing rapidly enough to keep polling companies in clover. Read Full Article
Top

#1097 - 03-22-05 12:27 AM Re: Cyber Spin: Political Spin & Advocacy Online
zeroflux zeroflux Administrator Registered: 03-11-01 Posts: 6175 Loc: Arlington, Virginia	Thought this character is a good fit for the topic of this thread. So what's the verdict... is the "Prince of Darkness" (Snarf!) a real "psyops" political hack or a low-level blowhard with delusions of grandeur? We report... you decide. Bold emphasis mine. The 'Prince' And The Pols Joe Steffen, the Ehrlich Aide Who Gossiped His Way Out of a Job A Friday night in June has just slipped into Saturday morning. The Prince of Darkness is at his computer, a familiar battle station. He does some of his best writing at the computer. -snip- But he also has an edge. The next month, on a Saturday near midnight, he writes: "My nicknames in GOP campaign circles are A) The Prince of Darkness, and B) Doctor Death. I can't even discuss a lot of what I've done/written/managed/initiated/executed because A) Most of the candidates I helped were elected and are still in office and, B) These office holders have NO IDEA of what actually helped elect them (Plausible Deniability -- a MUST in politics and psy-ops)." A week later, breakfast time on a Sunday: "I work in professional politics for a living. Part of my unwritten job description is to hurt people. It's the nature of the beast." -snip- Steffen's submissions to ************.com were posted under the name "NCPAC." That's short for the National Conservative Political Action Committee, which funded attack advertising against liberal candidates. Steffen was its spokesman in the early 1980s. 5 Page Washington Post Article
Top

Page 1 of 2

Previous Topic View All Topics

Index Next Topic

Moderator: Lei

Hop to:

Generated in 0.091 seconds in which 0.066 seconds were spent on a total of 13 queries. Zlib compression enabled.