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 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.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

The Globe and Mail's pro Harper bias: it's everywhere

If one thing has become evident in the last few days it is the following: Canada's capitalist media has a clear pro-Conservative bias. And I'm not just talking about the National Post.

Take the Globe and Mail.
Example #1: Andrew Steele's “Harper's Options”. Anyone who has read it will have to conclude that Andrew did not include all options available, on the contrary.

How about the option of letting democracy prevail by doing “non of the above”? Did Andrew really forget the most decent option of all or has his (anticipated?) bias in favour of the Conservatives tainted his ability to proper reasoning?

Why it is bias: it is pro-Harper bias because Andrew seems to have intentionally left out the most obvious and descent thing to do: after the government falls (on Monday), let the majority backed coalition rule.

Example #2: Jeffrey Simpson's “Harper bulldozes his way to the brink”. His opening puts right away on the wrong foot:

What an unpalatable choice now beckons Canadians: a government led by a Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, whose approach has disappointed so many; or a government led by Stéphane Dion, the Liberal Leader Canadians resoundingly rejected six weeks ago.

Does anyone see a problem with this kind of reasoning? Well, I do! First off, Jeffrey implies that Canadians need to make a choice. Wrong! Canadians have already resoundingly spoken in the last election, only six weeks ago. Suffering from temporary Alzheimers, Jeffrey?

Why it is bias: Jeffrey Simpsons suggests that Canadians need to go to the polls (something favoured by the Conservatives, if you haven't noticed). But our democracy is designed in such a way that a majority of MPs make the choice of who gets to govern; no other intervention is needed to let the majority-backed coalition govern.

The rest of the article is more of the same bias, combined with some more of the same (blah blah blah - national paper lost in provincialism); I will leave that for what it is.

Example #3 Adam Radwanski's “From the kitchen table to the cabinet table”. Lets not dwell on the title for now, but jump right to the end of the article:

Oh, and if Pat Martin is poised to take a cabinet seat, Stephen Harper is entirely justified in proroguing Parliament, barring the doors to the House of Commons, and doing whatever else it takes to prevent this thing from ever happening.

Why this is bias: It is a majority-backed coalition's full right to elect a government of their choosing. Where's the logic that a failed Prime Minister of Canada (a.k.a. Steve) is “entirely justified” to prorogue Parliament on the basis of a disliked MP? Where does Adam Radwanski's disdain for democracy stem from? Are all writers at the Globe and Mail that biased?

Keep reading

Example #4: Front page presents four links, three of them link to overly (or should I say overtly?) biased articles justifying the Conservative's "we-are-sooo-outraged" propaganda crap forward by the Conservatives:
Let me explain.

1. Audio: New Conservative Radio ad (!)
2. Can the PM sack the Governor-General (discussed above, #1)
3. Who would the NDP put in cabinet (discussed above, #2)
(4. Globe Politics)

Here's what a progressive would have enjoyed to see in a national paper:

1. Audio: Listen to the latest Conservative and Coalition backing ads.
2. Can Harper regain the confidence of the house?
3. Is Harper going to spend his Christmas in Ottawa?
(4. Globe Politics)

Why it bias:

(1) Publishing exact copies of Conservative ads but not once mention the latest ad in support of the coalition goes against one of the general rules of journalism: bring balance by finding and reporting on every side of a story. Why not at least present both ads?

I've already discussed Radwanski's (3) lack of logic and disdain for parliamentary democracy. Suggesting that the GG (2) is subordinate to the PM (when the opposite is closer to the truth) is favouring the all-over-the-capitalist-media-bias that what has been done to the PM is outrageous when in fact there's only one person to blame for his own misery: Stephen Harper himself. Had Harper presented a more agreeable budget and not provoked the majority opposition with his mean-spirited cuts to political financing then I would not have been writing this post.

Our Prime Minister has lost all confidence from the newly elected MPs (the house), yet he continues his campaign of misinformation and slander (and even lies that seem to have been "missed" by this wonderful paper) in order to organize as much "outrage" possible in order to influence an upcoming decision by Michaele Jean.

His disrespect for the house and the majority of people who did NOT elect this Bush backing Conservative is far more outragious to people than anything else. I would like to see a goverment that works.

Lastly, I do realize that this posting is far from conclusive. Nevertheless I hope I have been able to show my readers how highly biased (in this case in favour of the Conservative Party) Canadian corporate media is.

What's wrong with US politics and the media? Arianna Huffington explains (video)

Arianna figured it out, so why can't you?

Personally I've always been reluctant to label myself as a "lefty" (exept for my left-handedness). The label puts one on a two dimensional political line that does not sufficiently describe the variety of personal wisdom that is out there; it definitely doesn't describe my personal beliefs very well.

The real reason that North America has fallen into the two-dimensional politics trap is of course the FPTP-system; when there really only can be two valid candidate parties that nominate for governing the country (US: Democrats or Republican - Canada: Liberals or Conservatives) one will start to see everything through this two dimensional lense.

Here's What Arianna Huffington has to say about this:

In fact, what I'm saying is that when we look at everything in politics through that prism of right versus left, we really fall into the trap of assuming that the truth, the correct thing to do is by splitting the difference. And that is a major problem, because as I say in the book again and again, the truth is very often on one side or the other. [...]

[What] I'm saying is that first of all we should stop using that shorthand of right versus left, especially since on the major issues of our time, positions that used to be considered left-wing, like bringing the troops home from Iraq, some form of universal health care, and doing something about global warming, all those things are now solidly mainstream. You know, we have 60, 70 percent of Americans who believe in those positions. It's not that the left has suddenly expanded itself; it's that the center has shifted. But the American media haven't really noticed it.

The mainstream media didn't notice, or doesn't want to notice?

PALEVSKY: And what has been the fault of the US media? I mean, we saw it clearly after 9/11 in the media and the run-up to the war. And, you know, The New York Times and many of the big media outlets have come out and said, "We didn't fully do our job." But now they seem to be trying to make up for it. What is it now? What is the media missing when you watch the news?

HUFFINGTON: Well, we really have the same problem. We have the meme that the surge is working. It's still being mindlessly repeated by the media. And even as violence was escalating, we would have the media keep the same meme, the surge is working, even though it wasn't even just about violence. Remember, the surge supposedly was there to give the Iraqis a breathing space to reach some kind of political reconciliation. That has been completely forgotten as a benchmark. So the media are following the conventional wisdom. This is probably the worst thing you can say about the media. And that's why I have special sections on Dean Russert, whom I call the conventional wisdom zombie, and Bob Woodward, who's an icon of American journalism, who has had unparalleled access to the White House, but [in] his first two books during the Bush administration years completely missed the story of how we're misled to war.

See the whole interview below:



LINKS
- The Real News: Huffington breaks down the media
- Wikipedia: FPTP or Single Winner Voting System