Sunday, June 28, 2009

The unholy Ipsos Reid + CanWest alliance; junk-polls and media bias shaping Canadian opinion.

Paul from Paulitics has revealed that Ipsos Reid has been releasing numbers with a pro-Conservative bias. Well, I hate to say it, but bias stemming from illegitimate polling practises and media bias is everywhere. Take one of the latest Ipsos Reid polls, just as an example. Respondents were asked the following question:

(a) Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are doing a good job of managing the issues that are most important to Canadians (b) and should continue to govern.

1. Junk Poll: Misleading question (read it here).

The above is a classic misleading question (actually, it's not even a question...). The technical term for a such a misleading polling question is double-barreled question, one of the "Top 10 Ways to Get Misleading Poll Results"

How it works

John Wright - Ipsos Reid CanadaJohn Wright and his conservative buddies (a.k.a Ipsos Reid Canada) know quite well that Canadians “don't want an election” (68% of respondents don't want an election, June 2-4 Ipsos Reid poll). It appears that Ipsos Reid Canada used this information to craft a double-barrelled question in order to confuse respondents and get a more positive result on an on itself perfectly legitimate question (that should have been asked in the first place):

Do you agree that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are doing a good job of managing the issues that are most important to Canadians?

But by adding the b part ("and should continue to govern" = avert an election) Ipsos Reid seems to have been aiming at those 68% of respondents that don't want an election, hoping that at least some of them would respond more positive to the question as a whole

“I don't want an election (b) so therefore I still “somewhat agree” with the question as a whole (a+b).”

And by putting this part into the latter half of the question, Ipsos Reid is giving the b part some extra weight too. Bruce Grundy explains:

If you ask a double barrelled question [..] you will almost certainly not get answers to all the matters raised. Usually, only the last point will be dealt with.
- Bruce Grundy, "So you want to be a journalist?".

Perfect!

2. Junk-results: Misleading, again, and again.

The results of the misleading poll question were as follows:

Strongly agrees (20%)
Somewhat agrees (34%)

I don't have access to the full results of the poll (update below) but given the likeliness that this poll was in the 'Strongly Agree', 'Somewhat Agree/Somewhat Disagree', 'Strongly Disagree' format, it's probably safe to assume that the rest of the respondents (46%) either strongly disagreed with the statement or has no opinion (or were offended by the biased question and therefore not answering).

Let's assume the following:

31% strongly disagree
15% no opinion/offended

Logic also teaches us that if a person somewhat agrees (34%), they also somewhat disagree, right?

Then we can conclude that also the presentation of the results is misleading. From the results above, it would be just as well to conclude that an overwhelming majority of Canadians agree (strongly 31%, somewhat 34% - totalling 65% !!) that Stephen Harper is doing a bad job, right?

3. Junk-Journalism: Misleading, again, and again, and again.

While Ipsos Reid is happy to supply misleading results from a flawed polling practise, CanWest uses these faulty results to push an even more positive image onto Conservative Party.

Here's a good example how CanWest misrepresents the already flawed poll:

(1) Harper has the edge, however, with half (54%) of those polled saying he should continue to govern. (2) Five in 10 (54%) Canadians agreed Harper is doing a good job of managing the country while four in 10 Canadians agreed Ignatieff would do better. - italic inserts mine

Indeed, both (1) and (2) are first order fallacies because one cannot make these assumptions based on a single double-barrelled polling question.

Fallacy explained
Let me explain this with a simple example:

Jan (15) was asked to respond to the following statement:

(a) I dislike my current math teacher and (b) she can drop dead.

Yes, you've got it right, this is also a double-barrelled statement!

Let's assume that Jan doesn't like her math teacher. Let's also assume that Jan is not the hateful type either (even towards her math teacher that she really dislikes); then what is she supposed to answer?

Obviously she's NOT going to choose "strongly agree" because she doesn't dislike people in that (b) way . She's also NOT going to choose "strongly disagree" because she really dislikes her teacher. It's therefore quite likely she will choose "Somewhat agree" given the fact she really dislikes the teacher (a).

The example above shows that, although Jan does not have a deathwish for her math teacher, she might as well have chosen "somewhat agree". So how could someone take the "somewhat agree" as evidence that she has a deathwish for her teacher?

What we are dealing with here is fallacy of distribution. Jan's "somewhat agree" to the full answer can not be translated to a "somewhat agree" to the single parts (in this case the death-wish) of the statement, as shown above.

Back to our Ipsos Reid/CanWest poll and "analysis"
All that we can know for sure is that only 20 percent agreed to the full a+b question: we can only speculate on the other 80% due to the confusing and misleading double barrelled question.

It's very likely there are many people like Jan among the respondents of the Ipsos Reid poll who fully agreed with one part of the question (b part, to avert an election) , but not so much with the other part (a part, Harper and Cons do a "good job").

4. Conclusion
The unholy alliance of Ispos Reid and CanWest is good for some good laughs, but their polling (Ipsos Reid) and journalism (CanWest) practises presented in my examples are clearly and severely flawed. The confusing polling question (Ipsos Reid) in combination with the flawed analysis (CanWest) appear to have been designed to inflate support for the Conservative Party and deflate criticism of the current government: hard to fully proof, but I'll let you decide.

5. Recommendation
You think this example is an exception to the rule? Think again. I see this kind of junk polling in combination with junk-journalism EVERYWHERE in the Canadian press.

The best thing to do is to ignore all polls and stop reading the corporate media/press: it's junk. I've given up cable TV and newspaper subscription a long time ago, and I advice you to do the same. Please support the CBC for a more objective and unbiased presentation of Canadian news.

UPDATE

I noticed this post which is helping me out with the missing date:
A majority (53%) of Canadians ‘agree’ (20% strongly/34% somewhat) that ‘Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are doing a good job of managing the issues that are most important to Canadians and should continue to govern’. On the other hand, four in ten (43%) ‘disagree’ (23% strongly/21% somewhat) that this is the case.
It now looks like the poll was in the following format, and the numbers read as follows:

'Strongly Agree' (20%), 'Somewhat Agree (34%), Somewhat Disagree' (21%), 'Strongly Disagree' (23%)

Even if we accept these latest poll numbers as being legit results, then one can only conclude (and even this can be questioned) that there are more people disagreeing (23%) with both parts of the statement than agreeing (20%) ! All others respondents appear to be highly confused how to answer the question.

Furthermore, if Ipsos-Reid/CanWest is allowed to misrepresent the facts, then Getting it Right (GIR) feels fully entitled to do the same. The actual results with an explanation by GIR:
Strongly Agree (20%) - Okay, these people seem to support the Conservatives regardless of the stupid question.

Somewhat Agree (34%) - Logic will explain that people who somewhat agree (opposed to those who "strongly agree") also "somewhat disagree" with the statement, right? Right!

Somewhat Disagree (21%) - These bunch are as confused as the ones above, but they surely "somewhat disagree" too.

Strongly Disagree (23%) - The ones that clearly don't support the Cons and really don't mind election either.

6. Do the math and make your own headline:
Math:
20% agree, 78% disagree (23% strongly disagree, 52% somewhat disagree)

Headline:
Large majority (78%) of Canadians disapprove of Stephen Harper and his cronies and want elections now!
I feel great being so creative with flawed polling numbers!

Footnote:
Q: What's more flawed than an Ipsos Reid Poll?
A: Tons of them!

LINKS
- What is John Wright reading when he's not blogging, or, double-barrelled polling questions are misleading and should be avoided
- Ipsos junk poll using double-barrelled polling question - so much for credible polling
- Be warned if you dare to critisize us, because John Wright (vice president Ipsos) is ready to sue you too.
- National Post + Ipsos alliance: Canadians don't want an election right now
- Paulitics: "I'm John Wright from Ipsos Reid", or "why the recession has given me more time to piss off other bloggers"
- We at CanWest love the polls from Ipsos. They are so well crafted. We especially love results from double-barrelled question since those numbers can be used so easily to mislead our reader
- Wikipedia: Fallacy of distribution

FULL CANWEST ARTICLE

OTTAWA — Conservative and Liberal MPs united Friday to pass a government confidence vote — averting a tight summer election, which a new poll shows very few Canadians wanted.

Conservative and Liberal MPs voted 214-82 against the New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois to ensure passage of government budgetary spending estimates, and to set the stage for a Liberal confidence motion during the week of Sept. 28 that could trigger a November election.

An Ipsos Reid poll for Canwest News Service and Global National found 60 per cent of Canadians do not want a summer election, though half agree Parliament is not working. It found a statistical tie of 35 per cent for the Liberals and 34 per cent for the Conservatives, but a large gap in favour of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper over Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff in who can best manage the issues facing the country.

After a week of high political drama, ending with NDP and Bloc MPs accusing the Liberals of propping up Harper's government and abandoning the unemployed, MPs headed back to their constituencies for a three-month recess and preparations for a potential fall campaign.

The poll of 1,000 adults found a tie in vote-rich Ontario, too, with the Liberals at 40 per cent and the Conservatives at 38 per cent.

Harper has the edge, however, with half of those polled saying he should continue to govern. Five in 10 Canadians agreed Harper is doing a good job of managing the country, while four in 10 Canadians agreed Ignatieff would do better.

The survey was taken June 16-18 as Harper negotiated an agreement with Ignatieff to allay a Liberal threat to defeat the government Friday if he did not respond to concerns about unemployment, stimulus spending, the deficit and the isotopes shortage. The poll is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The poll found 53 per cent of Canadians agree Parliament is not working.

At the same time, Quebec stands as the only province where a slight majority of 52 per cent wants an election to clear the air.

In Quebec, the Bloc maintains a lead of 38 per cent, followed by 33 per cent for the Liberals, 16 per cent for the Conservatives, seven per cent for the New Democratic Party and four per cent for the Green Party.

The Harper-Ignatieff deal established a working group of Conservative and Liberal MPs and officials to study two potential employment-insurance reforms. One would allow self-employed Canadians to participate in the program. The other would establish a uniform eligibility rule to collect benefits, replacing a patchwork of requirements that are linked to regional unemployment rates.

During debate before the votes, NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs blasted the Liberals for withdrawing their support for a long-standing NDP-Bloc call to lower the minimum number of hours required for EI benefits to 360 from 420. Ignatieff pulled that from the table on the eve of talks with Harper.

"I know we're going to meet people who've now run out of their EI insurance and are going to fall off into extreme poverty this summer, and the unemployment rates seem to be still rising, so it's going to be a tough summer," NDP Leader Jack Layton told reporters.



Friday, June 19, 2009

TN! of the week: Helen Roberts, Federal Government Lawyer at the Braidwood Inquiry

Who would have thought the Braidwood inquiry would take such a major turn "before" closing arguments ?

Today it was revealed that a crucial email was "overlooked" by the legal team representing the Government of Canada.

In the now partly disclosed email, Supt. Dick Bent writes to an RCMP Assistant Commissioner that the four officers responsible for the killing of Dziekanski "had discussed [their] response en route [to the airport,] that if [Dziekanski] did not comply that they would go to [use the taser]".

This appears to contradict earlier made statements by the four officers; they all testified in court that no discussion on how to respond had taken place prior to entering the airport.

Sounds like signs of cover-up to me.

Helen Roberts apologized today for the "overlooked" email from Bent, but, for someone who has been following this inquiry closely, I find it very hard to believe that such a damning email can so easily be overlooked; of course this legal team wanted to protect the government and its subsidiaries from blame, and given they were the single collector of government dossiers they had the intend, means and the opportunity.

Taser-Nazi of the Week
However appalling the above might read to you, it's not the sole reason why Helen Roberts got nominated for being the Taser-Nazi of the Week. After all, my explanation is still nothing more than speculation on WHY she and her team "overlooked" such a crucial email.

Neither did she get nominated for breaking out in tears: these are stressful times for everyone involved, including Helen Roberts and her Mounties.

What got her nominated was the content of her tearful explanation. She simply kept in line with her "old" narrative, propping up the cops's version of the truth that they never had any conversation about how to respond before getting to the airport, and that Bent was, how did she put that again, simply "mistaken."

A mistake, that explains it, right?

Helen Roberts, dismissing crucial evidence as a "mistake" while withholding this highly contradictory evidence coming from a top RCMP brass has gotten you nominated for Taser-Nazi of the week.

Congratulations!

UPDATE 1: This post called "Canada: Cover-up of RCMP murder of immigrant worker unravels" on the World Socialist website should not be missed

UPDATE 2: I agree with Vancouver Sun's conclusion of the column Mounties in Tasering should face prosecution: "That was not an "oversight." It was professional incompetence or a cover-up."

Thursday, June 18, 2009

More Police Brutality in Victoria "the best place to live" British Columbia

The Victoria Police Department is at it again: police brutality rocks!

A Victoria police rookie constable used excessive force against two intoxicated people held in police cells, an internal investigation found.

[An] internal investigation launched by the department found the officer abused his authority and neglected his duty under the B.C. Police Act. He was suspended for five days without pay and is now back to work.
Sure, excessive force is fine, let's get back to work, Arbeit macht frei, nicht?
The officer's [use of excessive force was] not deemed criminal, [...] and neither of the two people roughed up in the cells suffered permanent injury.
There we go again, the police policing themselves, of course then it's not "criminal".
This was the third allegation of police [brutality] in police cells made public in the last two years.
I told you, Victoria really is the best place to live! Join the force, beat up some people, and get away with it!

Victoria teen Willow Kinloch successfully sued the department last year after she was tethered and restrained while drunk in a police cell in 2005. The complaint commissioner recently announced a full public inquiry into the matter.

Victoria Police Constable Greg SmithA police complaint hearing determined Victoria police Const. Greg Smith used unnecessary force when he pushed handcuffed Camosun college student Thomas McKay head-first to a concrete floor. McKay struck his head and was permanently brain-damaged after the April 2004 incident.

That's unfortunate, not everybody seems to get away with it. I'm sure Greg feels very sorry about it all.
The abuse-of-force cases led to changes in police cells, including upgrading cameras and posting a sergeant to provide full-time supervision of prisoners.
Yeah, that obviously helped a lot.

LINK
- We beat up people for a living



Internal probe finds cop used excessive force

Two intoxicated people roughed up by rookie in Victoria police cells

By Katie Derosa, Times ColonistJune 18, 2009

A Victoria police rookie constable used excessive force against two intoxicated people held in police cells, an internal investigation found.

Police have released few details about the October incident but an internal investigation launched by the department found the officer abused his authority and neglected his duty under the B.C. Police Act. He was suspended for five days without pay and is now back to work.

The officer's actions were not deemed criminal, however, and neither of the two people roughed up in the cells suffered permanent injury. Police would not identify the officer but said he has been with the force for two years.

Victoria police Chief Jamie Graham announced the investigation in January after reviewing the video surveillance footage and discussing the matter with the police complaint commissioner.

Victoria police spokesman Sgt. Grant Hamilton would not return calls for comment.

This was the third allegation of police wrongdoing in police cells made public in the last two years.

Victoria teen Willow Kinloch successfully sued the department last year after she was tethered and restrained while drunk in a police cell in 2005. The complaint commissioner recently announced a full public inquiry into the matter.

A police complaint hearing determined Victoria police Const. Greg Smith used unnecessary force when he pushed handcuffed Camosun college student Thomas McKay head-first to a concrete floor. McKay struck his head and was permanently brain-damaged after the April 2004 incident.

McKay settled a lawsuit with the city for an undisclosed amount.

The abuse-of-force cases led to changes in police cells, including upgrading cameras and posting a sergeant to provide full-time supervision of prisoners.

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist


Friday, June 05, 2009

Geert Wilders' anti-EU party biggest election winner in Dutch European Elections

Radio Netherlands

The biggest winners in Thursday's European Parliament elections in the Netherlands are the two most outspoken parties: Geert Wilders' nationalist anti-EU party and the firmly pro-EU social-liberal party D66.

Fielding candidates for the first time, Mr Wilders' staunchly anti-European party will be returning four of the 25 Dutch MEPs. The other winners are social-liberal D66 and Green Left, both of whom are firm advocates of the European Union; each will send three MEPs to Brussels.

The Freedom Party MEPs will be headed by Barry Madlener; Mr Wilders will remain an MP in The Hague. The Freedom Party has ruled out joining any of the existing multi-party factions in the EP. In his victory speech, Mr Madlener repeated he will go for "less Europe, more Netherlands, Turkey never an EU member".

Listen to the reactions of senior Dutch politicians and party leaders to the European parliamentary election results (See below for details of the politicians featured in the report*)

Given the size of the European Parliament - it has 736 seats - it remains doubtful whether the Freedom Party will manage to make its mark, all by itself. That's a worrying scenario, Amsterdam politicologist André Krouwel told RNW's Perro de Jong:

"I'm afraid that all the people who pinned their hopes on Wilders and who did so in earnest may once again get the feeling that they are not being understood, and that their problems are not being taken seriously. It may cause them to become disillusioned with the political system forever."

"Yes" to EU wins too
Voters rejected the other parties' two-faced approach of a "no" to the Brussels bureaucracy, but a "yes" to the European ideals. They voted either for the Freedom Party's "no", or for the outspoken "yes" of the other outright winner, social-liberal D66. The rejuvenated liberals even centred their campaign around their pro-European position, and tripled their following. EU-friendly ecology party Green Left, too, managed to gain an extra seat.

National effect
Formally the elections have no repercussions on national politics, but the vote is generally seen as a nationwide opinion poll on the performance of the Dutch government and opposition in The Hague. Emphasising that his party was now the country's second biggest in terms of voter share, Geert Wilders was quick to claim that the results are a call on the government to step down.

Opinion polls had been predicting that Mr Wilders' PVV would become the country's biggest party if general elections were held now. As it happens, in Thursday's EU elections the party narrowly failed to dethrone the Christian Democrats as the country's largest party.

The three parties that form the governing coalition together lost 6 of their 16 MEPs. The biggest blow was administered to Labour, the big loser in the contest, which was more than halved, from 7 to 3 seats. The Christian Democrats lost 2 of their 7 seats.

The third coalition partner, small Christian Union, remained stable at two seats, as did opposition Socialist Party. Opposition conservative VVD, which had feared being leeched by Mr Wilders' party, lost just one of its four seats.

Wait till Sunday
The final results of the Europe-wide elections will not be known until Sunday evening, when voting has been completed in all EU member states. Contravening Brussels' preferences, the Netherlands is not witholding the election results until Sunday. The tradition is for the outcome to be published as soon as the votes have been counted.

*Senior Dutch politicians and party leaders responding to the European election results, in the order they feature in the report:

  • Femke Halsema, leader of the Green Left party in the Dutch parliament
  • Jack de Vries, deputy defence minister and prominent Christian Democrat
  • Hans van Balen, Conservative VVD leader for the European election
  • Harrry van Bommel, Socialist Party MP
  • Wim van de Camp, Christian Democrat leader for the European election
  • Femke Halsema
  • Geert Wilders, Freedom Party leader
  • Barry Madlener, Freedom Party leader for the European election
  • Hero Brinkman, Freedom Party MP

The table below summarises the Dutch results, with 92 percent of the votes counted.
Turnout was at 36 percent, slightly below the 40 percent mark of 2004.

EP 2009 election results (old seat count in brackets)
Christian Democrats 5 (7)
Labour 3 (7)
Conservative VVD 3 (4)
Social-liberal D66 3 (1)
GreenLeft 3 (2)
Socialist Party 2 (2)
Christian Union/Dutch Reformed Party 2 (2)
Freedom Party 4 (0)









LINKS
- Geert Wilders winner
- Wikipedia: Geert Wilders

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Bill O'Reilly "The Tiller Killer" should be jailed for hate-speech on grounds of inciting violence

Anyone who's been following my blog knows I'm pretty reluctant to pull the "hate speech" card. Simplified, I believe one only crosses the line when one incites acts of violence. But that's exactly why Bill O'Reilly should be jailed.

I'm not alone:

O'Reilly is being incredibly disingenuous when he claims that he bears no responsibility for others' actions in the killing of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday. When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person.

You cannot claim to hold no responsibility for what other people do when you call for people to besiege Tiller's clinic, as O'Reilly did in January 2008. And this was after Tiller had been shot in both arms and after his clinic had been bombed.

O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O'Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence.
Thank you, Mary Alice Carr, well said.

PS1: More shocking news about how authorities (including FBI) responded to recent violent acts by Scott Roeder here.

PS2: Old but relevant "news" below:



PS3: More old "news":



PS4: O'Reilly falsely claimed he only "reported what groups" were calling Tiller



PS5: O'Reilly: "If I could get my hands on Tiller [the baby killer]....well, you know....



PS6: Mary Alice Carr in "conversation" with O'Reilly the Tiller Killer



PS7: Bill O'Reilly lying about HOW he used "tiller the baby killer":



LINKS
- Mary Alice Carr - Why I turned down O'Reilly
- Salon.com: O'Reilly's campaign against murdered doctor Tiller
- Democracy Now! More shocking news about Scott Roeder
- Salon.com: Tiller the baby killer



Monday, June 01, 2009

Bill O'Reilly has blood on his hands (video)

No question [Bill O'Reilly] has blood on his hands.






LINKS:
- Bill O'Reilly killed George Tiller
- Tiller the baby Killer

----------------------------------

Liberal bloggers point finger at Bill O'Reilly in George Tiller's death

It's no secret that Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly was instrumental in publicizing the activities of George Tiller, the 67-year-old Kansas doctor who was one of the few physicians in the country to perform late-term abortions in the face of protests, bombings at Tiller's clinic and death threats.

Tiller was slain over the weekend, as he stood in his church in Wichita, Kan., serving as an usher. President Obama decried the killing, saying, "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence." Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion activist and former member of a right-wing militia group, has been arrested.

Now, liberal bloggers are speculating that what one called O'Reilly's "jihad against Tiller" may have contributed to the doctor's death.

"There's no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose," said Salon.com's Gabriel Winant. Tiller has been vilified in 29 episodes of O'Reilly's "The Factor," Winant reports, usually described as "Tiller the Baby Killer" and often as a doctor who "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000."

On March 15, 2006, O'Reilly said Tiller was the moral equivalent of Al Qaeda. On Nov. 9, 2006, he likened the physician who gave women legal abortions to China's Mao, Germany's Hitler or the Soviet Union's Stalin. And on Dec. 12, 2006, he unleashed all his hatred in this episode. See what you think.


The right-wing blogosphere is defending O'Reilly by blaming ... the Obama administration.

John Aravosis, who blogs for AmericaBlog.com, wrote that this was all the president's fault, because the administration withdrew a report warning about abortion protest violence.

Thank God that the Obama administration caved last month to religious right and GOP demands that it withdraw a new domestic terrorism report that indicated, among other things, that radicals might use abortion as a justification for committing acts of domestic terrorism. Now a man is dead, and an American church has been shot up during services. Which leads to the question as to whether the Obama administration plans to do anything about the terrorist threat posed by religious right extremists, or whether typical Democratic spinelessness will lead us to now ignore this brutal murder, since that is the message that was sent last month, just weeks before this act of terror.


For the most part, both pro-choice and anti-abortion groups of the mainstream variety were careful to condemn Tiller's slaying.

But Operation Rescue, which ran a Tiller Watch on its website, called Tiller "a mass murderer." In a statement, the group's founder, Randall Terry, said, “We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God.”

Maybe, as MSNBC's political team suggested this morning, the culture wars are about to return big time.

-- Johanna Neuman