Damn Lies

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" Popularised by Mark Twain and attributed to Benjamin Disraeli

In November I wrote two articles about the way the Mainstream Media (MSM) misuses or misinterprets data to fit within it narrative (Media Influencers) and how it advocates a certain position by adopting questionable moral principles to justify a rather radical position (Slating a Story)

The lovely thing about MSM – especially from the perspective of a media critic – is that it is a gift that keeps on giving. One wonders whether MSM has some bizarre death wish in continuing to publish analysis that is so obviously faulty or whether those who write and edit fulfil Einstein’s definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

The latest little gem arises from the treatment of a 1News Verian Poll about public reaction to the Treaty Principles Bill. The issue has been the subject of some sharp analysis by Rob Macculloch in a short piece on his “Down to Earth Kiwi” site posted on 11 December.

The poll was reported by One News with the headline that “More NZ’ers oppose than support the Treaty Principles Bill” as follows:

"Poll: More New Zealanders oppose than support Treaty Principles Bill. The poll, which surveyed 1006 eligible voters .. found 23% supported the bill while 36% were opposed. A slightly larger group - 39% - said they didn't know enough about the bill, and 2% preferred not to say". At the bottom of the article One News stated that the question asked, "Do you support, or oppose, the bill; not know enough to say; or prefer not to say"

Even the most superficial reading of the piece demonstrates that the headline is at best a half-truth (and would probably qualify as “misinformation”) That fact is that only 36% of those polled opposed the Bill. 23% supported the Bill. Now as far as those two figures are concerned more of those polled opposed than supported.

The problem is that those two groups of respondents amount to 59% of those who were polled. A large group (39%) said they did not know enough about the Bill so would fall into a “don’t know” category. This brings the numbers polled up to 98% and the last outliers – 2% - preferred not to say.

Now there are a number of problems that arise from the article apart from it demonstrating a difficulty with numeracy, although with today’s education system that is no real surprise.

The first problem is that we do not know what the question was. That is important. The way the question is framed often influences the answer. Is the question an open or a closed question. Does it suggest an answer. If it was worded differently would it suggest another answer.

Developing statistical information is quite different from the art of examination in chief or cross-examination but it is similar to an early skill developed by trial lawyers to identify leading questions and to frame a cross-examination that leads a witness up the path until the inevitable cliff-face is reached. Often the “push” question need never be asked.

Macculloch makes the important point in interpreting the data by suggesting:

“How on earth can one draw that conclusion when 41% of respondents replied saying they either want to know more about the debate, or prefer not to say? If you add that number to the 23% who are opposed, then who knows how many Kiwis are falling on the side of support - or opposition - to the Bill. Potentially 64% may turn out supporting the Bill (=23 % + 41%) should those who want to learn more about it end up in support.”

He makes a suggestion that I support with perhaps a bit of a gloss. MSM should not assume that its audience is stupid. The errors in the headline and the statistical interpretation of the journalist are plain to see. Rather it would be helpful in future, as Macculloch suggests to

“report the actual goddam survey question & actual goddam answers next time, and leave the interpretation to the readers, rather than assuming we are all dumb.”

But that may be too much to ask of MSM who are continuing to demonstrate their bias, continuing to slant their stories, continuing to press and advocate for whatever position they hold dear and continue thereby to erode the crumbling trust that citizens have in the Fourth Estate.

And MSM wants the Government to pass a Bill requiring Digital Platforms to fund their continuing misconstrued positions? As I have argued elsewhere there is neither right nor entitlement to advertising revenue. Any revenue derived from advertising must be earned. And although MSM – theoretically – plays an important role in the democratic process it continued position in that process must likewise be earned.

Frankly the continued behaviour of MSM makes it difficult to imagine that the Government should directly or indirectly by means of the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill provide any level of funding until MSM gets its act together.

We live in hope.