Interesting. How do you square in your mind that there are hundreds of different polling agencies? Each news org has its own, then there’s countless independent ones as well. There’s easily hundreds.
How does that all get coordinated and falsified with some orchestrated media plan without whistleblowers complaining?
Nothing’s usually falsified, per se, it’s more that pollsters have a range of questions and results and one of them is going to “suit” a news agency. Or a PR group, or whatever organization needs the “power of polling results” to move clicks.
For example, we’re in Prime Polling Season, with a huge election coming up, so the polling results are all going to be in the same neighborhood, question-wise, usually. It’s better for corporate news if the race is very close, so all the polls we’ll read about are going to say that.
If a poll came back heavily - lopsidedly - for one candidate over the other, we likely wouldn’t hear about it. Because that would be a problem. They can’t dig into the poll too much they just need a headline out of it.
This is all outside of the methodological problems with polls, it’s just specific to the “uses” that corporate news requires of polls.
I don’t see much evidence of cherry picking polling results, they generally all report their own, or someone like Pew. CNN reports CNN polls, Fox reports Fox polls, 538 reports 538 polls, etc etc. Any person who wishes can check between them, it’s very easy. They usually provide the specific questions asked as well.
I guess it’s ironic that this article doesn’t refer to any polling. No doubt it will come up again and again because corporate news has 24 hours to fill, and outside of gaffes and releases, all they’ve got are talking heads and polls.
Don’t be fooled.
This is the “And it’s Harris coming up the inside!” part of the horse race.
In October they’ll swing it hard back to trump to goose all the sweet sweet clicks out of you poors before the election.
It’s gotta suck living life this cynical.
Can confirm.
It’s okay. Except for the fascism. The sodas are pretty good.
Are you trying to say that elections are not real, or that the media falsifies polling results to fit some planned, orchestrated narrative?
The latter
Interesting. How do you square in your mind that there are hundreds of different polling agencies? Each news org has its own, then there’s countless independent ones as well. There’s easily hundreds.
How does that all get coordinated and falsified with some orchestrated media plan without whistleblowers complaining?
Nothing’s usually falsified, per se, it’s more that pollsters have a range of questions and results and one of them is going to “suit” a news agency. Or a PR group, or whatever organization needs the “power of polling results” to move clicks.
For example, we’re in Prime Polling Season, with a huge election coming up, so the polling results are all going to be in the same neighborhood, question-wise, usually. It’s better for corporate news if the race is very close, so all the polls we’ll read about are going to say that.
If a poll came back heavily - lopsidedly - for one candidate over the other, we likely wouldn’t hear about it. Because that would be a problem. They can’t dig into the poll too much they just need a headline out of it.
This is all outside of the methodological problems with polls, it’s just specific to the “uses” that corporate news requires of polls.
I don’t see much evidence of cherry picking polling results, they generally all report their own, or someone like Pew. CNN reports CNN polls, Fox reports Fox polls, 538 reports 538 polls, etc etc. Any person who wishes can check between them, it’s very easy. They usually provide the specific questions asked as well.
I guess it’s ironic that this article doesn’t refer to any polling. No doubt it will come up again and again because corporate news has 24 hours to fill, and outside of gaffes and releases, all they’ve got are talking heads and polls.