This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« What's Wrong With Youth Culture? | Main | Screwtape proposes another toast »
March 23, 2005
Mystery Pollster on Schiavo "Push Poll" Charge
The 10-2 Circuit Court ruling against Terri Schiavo's parents is a strong indication of things to come from the Supreme Court. I am deeply saddened by the news and the events of recent days. This news comes as I was about to post on the recent public polling related to Terri's fight. Fearing that some may charge me with being crass, I thought about witholding my post. However, I believe my heart is okay on this matter, so here it is...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that many of our readers feel passionately about the Schiavo case and would agree with those on our side of this issue that the latest polling of the case are clear examples of "Push Polls." However, as I wrote in this previous post, I do not believe these polls are Push Polls as many allege. Yet, I didn't say it nearly as well as Mystery Pollster did today:
Can we please stop using the term "push poll" to describe every survey we consider objectionable?MP even took me to task for a statement in my post, to which I responded in comments on his blog (and reproduced below the fold).
...
A push poll is not a poll at all but rather a form of fraud - an effort to spread an untrue or salacious rumor under the guise of legitimate research. "Push pollsters" are not pollsters at all. They do not care about collecting data or measuring opinions (even in a "bogus" way). They only care about calling as many people as possible to spread a false or malicious rumor without revealing their true intent. Whatever complaint one might have about the wording or reporting of the ABC poll, it was certainly not a "push poll."
I believe that a poll can "push" respondents into answers, but that does not make the poll a Push Poll. Nuance? Certainly. But an important one as charges of Push Polling makes those on our side of issues sound really ignorant. Whether the public has been properly informed to answer the questions posed by the polling organizations accurately, is another matter.
MY COMMENT LEFT IN RESPONSE TO MYSTERY POLLSTER POST
Good post Mark. As I made clear in my post, I didn't think the ABC poll was a Push Poll. You're the one with the experience designing survey instruments and I should have qualified my comments on what polling orgs are or are not "supposed" to do. :-)
Sentences of my post following your quote read: "I'm sure there are those who viewed the questions asked by ABC News as pushing respondents into pro-Schiavo and pro-Congress answers. That's what makes the design of survey instruments so difficult."
I only meant to suggest that polling organizations have a tough time providing enough accurate and unbiased information about complex or controversial issues in a few sentences to elicit reliable responses (there's that whole reliability testing issue one of your readers educated me on a while back).
Regarding the accuracy of terms like "persistent vegetative state (PVS)" and "life support" in describing Terri's state, I think that is open to debate, and hence the unwarranted charges of "Push Poll" from the right.
By telling poll respondents that Terri is PVS, I feel that ABC and Gallup violated a principle of good survey design that my professor calls "level of wording." PVS is a technical medical term and using PVS in question presumes that people understand that term.
My hypothesis is that when people hear "persistant vegetative state" they think "brain dead vegetable." Terri is by no means brain dead and I would argue that she is not a "vegetable" either. Brain dead vegetables on life support have no chance of recovery.
I've heard and read much testimony supporting both sides of this argument - including from people who have been declared PVS by doctors, but fully recovered and are now on the talk shows telling their story (not to imply that recovery from PVS is common, or that Terri can recover [I simply don't know]). PVS does not mean brain dead vegetable with no chance of recovery. But my bet is that is what the public thinks of when they hear the term "persistent vegetative state."
Perhaps the polls should have said that Terri was "severely brain damaged" and that her "court appointed doctors" do not believe that she can improve (both accurate and fair statements at an appropriate level of wording).
As I said in my post about the "life support" versus "feeding tube" terms, use of these terms (PVS and feeding tube) may have "pushed" SOME respondents into answers, but I can't imagine that it would realign public opinion.
These are very interesting questions, and I must say that I am firmly in your camp. The ABC News poll was NOT a Push
Poll as that term should be reserved for acts of deviousness. But, I do think that a poll can "push" respondents into answers, and not be a Push Poll. That is why we can debate whether a poll question is biased without calling it a Push Poll.
Unfortunately though this is a nuance that most pundits do not appreciate. You provide the blogosphere (and media) a valuable service with this education.
Posted by Rick at March 23, 2005 04:13 PM
Trackback Pings
Comments
Rick: We do not know if that was a 10-2 decision or not. All we know is that the 11th Circuit has 12 Justices. They do not publish the numbers in a ruling (10-2, 12-0, 7-5, etc.) We do know that 2 judges published their dissent, but for all we know, there were more judges who dissented without releasing a written dissent.
Posted by: Matt at March 23, 2005 06:17 PM
I did not know that Matt. Thanks! I just took it from the new story. Good to know!
Posted by: Rick Brady at March 23, 2005 06:34 PM
terri schiavo should be put to rest. why can you let your family live in pain, but if a pet is in pain it gets put to sleep?
Posted by: Ramona McCartney at March 23, 2005 08:19 PM
Do you know anything at all about the facts in this case? Terri wasn't in pain until she was starved.
Posted by: Matt at March 23, 2005 09:21 PM
Matt, I thought the most interesting part of that comment was "put to rest" and "put to sleep." Next thing we know, people will start advocating that the terminally ill or those with severe brain damage should be "put down."
Posted by: Rick Brady at March 23, 2005 09:54 PM
You know, that's what gets me about this whole thing. People say she should be allowed to die. We're all being allowed to die. Death is natural. Terri isn't being allowed to die anymore than a rape victim is allowed to have sex. This is being forced upon her. Nothing about her disability was rushing her towards the grave. I am reminded of Gandalf rushing to save Faramir from burning to death at his father's hands in the Return of the King. "Stay this madness," indeed.
Posted by: Matt at March 23, 2005 10:26 PM
Hey Matt, are you sure about the 10-2? "A second judge, Judge Tjoflat, agreed with Wilson that an injunction ought to have issued, even as the Circuit voted 10 to 2 not to rehear the matter. " Hugh Hewitt today...
Posted by: Rick Brady at March 23, 2005 10:43 PM
Yeah. There was a series of posts at NRO today explaining the deal. It was in the Corner; I'll try to find the links. The legal scholars over there said that the 11th does not typically release the vote tally, but it was just Wilson and Tjoflat that released written opinions.
Posted by: Matt at March 23, 2005 10:49 PM