It Must Be True! I Saw It In A Poll!

CNN is reporting on its website this morning that a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 54 percent of Americans believe that the war in Iraq has made the United States less safe from terrorism – never mind the fact that no major terrorist attack has been carried out on American soil in nearly four years, despite the desire on the part of many lunatics to do so. Maybe they’re just too busy defending themselves “over there” to go on the offensive “over here.” But I could go on at length about that.

The findings of this poll called to my mind some thoughts that I wrote down about a year ago for some friends on the disturbing tendency on the part of many so-called news organizations to report polling data as news. I had thought about re-working that piece for this space, but finally decided to simply re-produce it here (with apologies to those of you who have already seen it), as the truth that prompted it has not changed.

– JLH

For those who can distinguish between useful and useless information (which is probably more people than are given credit), the excessive reliance of news organizations on polling data has long been a major irritant. Especially when such polling data seems to be for the blatant purpose of influencing, rather than reflecting, public opinion.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have much use for polling data that reflects public opinion either. So what if a CBS News/New York Times poll were to reveal that a clear majority of Americans agree with the University of Colorado president when she says that a certain vulgar term referring to women can be used as a term of endearment? Does that mean husbands across the land would be safe in greeting their wives with that term when they get home tonight?

Of course not. Polls do not establish facts or truth. They merely reflect the respondents’ perception of what is factual or truthful. The fact that sixty-eight percent of Americans might believe that Burt Reynolds’ hair is real would not make it so. But it just might convince some who had believed otherwise to question whether their earlier belief was justified. And one can’t help but wonder if that is the intent anyway.

“Perception is reality” is a phrase often used in political discussions nowadays. And I can’t help but notice that it sounds a lot like, “Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth” – a sentiment expressed by Hitler’s propaganda expert, Joseph Goebbels. Neither statement is true in the strictest sense. Truth, lies, and reality do not change no matter how much statements to the contrary are repeated.

Rather than revealing any facts about truth, such statements reveal the ability to influence and alter people’s perception of what is the truth. They go a long way in explaining, for example, why, despite the fact that the economy has created nearly 1.5 million jobs over the last nine months, fifty-seven percent of registered voters thought that it had actually lost jobs over the same period.

Of course, ultimately, the fault for misperceptions like this falls at the feet of those whose beliefs such polls reflect. They have allowed themselves to believe what is not true because they heard the right people say it loud and long enough. Yet, at the same time, those people who have said it cannot absolve themselves of their responsibilities so easily. All else being equal, the people should have the right to expect that what they hear out of the media to be factual – and relevant.

But think about it. Do you ever hear anyone who cites such polling data, either in the papers or on the airwaves, make any attempt at explaining what their listeners should do with the information they have just shared? No, they can’t. Because that would either require an admission - “Now, the numbers I’ve just cited to you have absolutely no bearing on what it’s really like out there whatsoever” - or a confession - “We’ve provided you with this data so as to merely make you believe things are like we wish they were” - neither of which would do much for the stature of the “fourth estate” in the public eye.

But in reality, the constant citing of polls itself suggests a cheapening of the value of many of the media outlets. It amounts to the substitution of opinion (remember, they are called public opinion polls) for actual news reporting.

And it’s not hard to see why such would be appealing for a reporter, anchor, or producer with an agenda. The reporting of news is the reporting of facts and events. Facts and events are unalterable, no matter how much one might wish they could be altered in order to convince people that his world view is right.

Opinion, on the other hand, especially the opinion of the masses, is quite malleable. It can be molded in any number of ways – including by simply telling people that most of their fellow citizens believe something to be true, whether it is or not. The nature of humanity is such that, if this is continually reported and repeated – with no acknowledgement that it has little to no basis in any documented factual information – the masses will be drawn to the majority opinion, or candidate.

Ironically enough, if many of the media outlets used the time that they devoted to citing polling data in order to cite actual facts, that alone would almost certainly change the outcome of the polls with which they are so infatuated. The fact that they don’t suggests a change in the mission of the media – either conscious or unconscious –from reporting facts to influencing perceptions. From relaying “the story,” to creating it.