|
CounterPunch
February
26, 2003
The Infallible Opinion Poll
Sample
of One, Zero Percent Margin of Error
by PAUL DEAN
Many of us have never been polled by a national
news organization. Almost all of us have, however, over the years,
read results of hundreds, if not thousands, of opinion polls.
It seems no one in America can escape being bombarded by opinion
polls, which are presented to us as accurate representations
of what "we" think.
I am almost always struck by how much
the reported opinions of my fellow Americans seem to diverge
from my own perspective. In fact, I can't recall a single poll
which led me to conclude that my thinking was consistent with
what corporate media says Americans think about a given issue.
I take it as self evident that this is
because the primary function of corporate media is not to report
news, but is instead to influence and direct public opinion and
behavior to serve corporate interests. The 'opinion poll' is
arguably one of the most effective tools ever devised for manipulation
of public perception, and therefore, by extension, controlling
social behavior and setting political agenda. Carefully contrived
polls can plant thoughts and opinions in people's minds that
are contrary to their own interests, leaving them with the impression
that these implanted thoughts are their own opinions.
One recent poll, conducted by ABC News
and the Washington Post, concluded that a majority of Americans
favor use of nuclear weapons against Iraq. The article, as it
appeared in the Washington Post, was called "Most Favor
Nuclear Option Against Iraq." The same article appeared
in my local Santa Rosa (California) Press Democrat, under the
title "Nuclear Retaliation on Iraq Favored."
The article, of course, did not explain
that the poll was expressly designed to create the false impression
that Americans want to use nukes against Iraq, but that much
was obvious upon reading about it. The exact questions which
were asked were not reprinted. But it was apparent from the article,
that Americans would "favor" a first strike using nuclear
weapons only in "retaliation" after Iraq "attacked"
our troops, using chemical or biological agents.
Imagine, for a moment, that you don't
like my Dad, and that I suspect sometime, somewhere, you might
be going to do something bad. Furthermore, I know that someone
who is known to hate you, and with whom you do not associate,
has already done something really bad. I suspect that, despite
your mutual animosity, the two of you may team up and do something
really, really bad. Therefore, I initiate a confrontation with
you by pre-emptively bashing you in the face with a right hook.
You respond with a left jab. Would it then be fair, accurate
and reasonable for me to describe my next blow as a "retaliation"
for your "attack?" Through this type of deliberate
manipulation of language, pollsters can redefine words to convey
the meaning of their polar opposites.
The first step for these particular pollsters,
was to manipulate language to obtain the conditional 'result'
that they wanted. The next step, was to announce the result in
a headline that implied that it was an absolute, and not a conditional
result. Here is an analogy to illustrate this. Imagine a poll
which asks this question: "If you came home to find your
neighbor raping and attempting to murder your wife, would you
shoot your neighbor in the head, if that was the only way to
save your wife?" Seizing the inevitable result of a question
framed this way, we could then craft the headline "Most
Americans Favor Shooting Their Neighbors in the Head."
But beneath this analysis is an even
more fundamental question. Good scientists understand that the
very act of trying to observe something can radically alter the
type and quality of data gathered. This is why a scientist that
wants to observe gorillas in the wild might try to conceal herself,
or to wear a really convincing gorilla suit, when she is in the
presence of gorillas that she wants to observe. Otherwise, she
will only be observing the way gorillas behave in response to
the presence of an intruder. This would preclude any possibility
of observing 'natural' gorilla behavior.
For the statement that "most Americans
favor use of nuclear weapons against Iraq" to be an accurate
reflection of "our" opinion, it is necessary that the
idea itself must have arisen out of spontaneous discussions and
debates amongst our informed citizenry, as opposed to its having
been planted by pollsters and government officials who are trying
to manufacture consent to initiate violence. Otherwise, to even
ask the question is like forgetting to put on the gorilla suit.
For their purposes, the good folks at ABC News and the Washington
Post would like us to believe that the question of whether or
not to annihilate Iraq with nuclear weapons, is a major topic
of discussion in cafes, bars and truck stops throughout America.
This is an implication that pollsters
who create such tripe, must really hope that we will not examine.
I can imagine two "regular guys" in Americas' mythical
heartland, (we'll call them Lester and Homer) engaged in a serious
debate on this issue:
Lester: "Homer, our President is
proposing that we violate international law with a pre-emptive
military strike against Iraq that is not sanctioned or approved
by the U.N. If Saddam still has viable chemical weapons that
US corporations, fronted by Donald Rumsfeld, sold them in the
80s, and if Iraq responds to our aggression by using those weapons,
do you think we should unleash a first strike nuclear attack
in order to incinerate Iraq and send the nations of the world
the message that Americans are completely insane?"
Homer: "Geez Lester, you said a
mouthful. I'll tell you what- you and I both know that detonation
of a nuclear device means that plutonium and strontium 90, two
of the most deadly radioisotopes known to humanity, would be
released in prodigious quantities. Therefore, in addition to
the probability that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians,
including women and children, would be instantly incinerated,
our troops will be exposed to dangerous or even deadly levels
of radioactivity. We also know without question, that a radioactive
cloud would then enter the stratosphere and travel around the
globe. The resulting fallout will poison everyone in its' path,
causing cancer and birth defects worldwide, including right here
in America. And of course, there is the fact that there is no
military necessity whatsoever to even warrant consideration of
the use of nuclear weapons, so I don't know"
Lester: "Right you are, Homer. And
if you add to that equation that doing this could destabilize
the entire Middle East, possibly resulting in a nuclear conflagration
when nations like Pakistan and India, or North Korea, react,
it is clear that we had better think this through."
Homer: "I'm with you Lester. Did
you know Saddam gassed his own people?"
Lester: "Yep, Homer, I sure did
hear that. And that is the primary reason why I'm inclined to
support a vicious attack against everyone in Iraq, using nuclear
weapons on a first strike basis. Saddam is a really, really bad
man."
Homer: "Then we're agreed. Let's
nuke 'em."
For months now, corporate media, basing
their claims on the 'latest poll results,' has been telling us
that a majority of Americans support war. This 'result' is always
announced first, before it is revealed that Americans actually
don't support war at all if the U.N. cannot be manipulated into
appearing to support it. Since it now seems unlikely that the
Bush administration will be able to convince the entire world
to bow to US imperialism, and since millions of people here and
abroad are demonstrating against this war, I think it might be
time for American media to simply admit that a majority of Americans
do not want war with Iraq. But I am not holding my breath in
the hope that ABC, Washington Post, FOX, New York Times, etc.
will reveal that the latest poll confirms this fact.
I am not content, however, to hide my
head in the sand, and ignore the threat that a manipulative corporate
media poses to my security, and to the security of the world.
I cannot afford to wait for corporate pollsters to craft questions
which bear on real issues. Therefore, I have created my own pre-emptive
poll to counter this threat. The poll is manipulative, it displays
flagrant bias, and its' questions were carefully crafted to obtain
a specific result that supports a political agenda. In these
respects, it is identical to most polls conducted by corporate
media in America.
This poll was conducted on February 20,
2003. It had a sample of one, and a zero percent margin of error,
because I already knew what I was thinking when I created it.
All respondents are best described as white males, and musicians.
However, all respondents were born in Mississippi, grew up in
the south, and spent years banging nails into lumber for a living,
alongside guys that drove Chevy and Ford pickup trucks and drank
Budweiser beer. In addition, all respondents have a wife, an
ex-wife, a mother, a sister in law, and two children, including
a teenage daughter, and all of these women agree with the political
views of the respondent. So don't even think for a minute that
the poll results don't accurately represent the views of level
headed, 'family values' middle Americans from the mythical heartland.
To confirm the absolutely unquestionable
integrity and validity of poll results, all questions and possible
responses are reprinted, along with the instructions that accompanied
the original poll. In some cases, responses have been subjected
to editorial analysis, in order that readers may get a more accurate
sense of the meaning I want them to derive from the results.
Instructions: Read each question carefully
and select the letter next to the answer that best reflects the
political agenda that I want to promote. (After each question,
the poll results are noted, and percentages posted reflect the
range of response)
Question 1. Since it is now apparent
to America and the world that Bush and his entire Administration
are thoroughly corrupt, have seized power illegitimately, and
are responsive only to the desires of the richest Americans and
to corporate interests, to the detriment of average Americans
in the mythical heartland, what is to be done about it?
A. Impeach Bush
B. Impeach Bush, and his entire administration
C. Impeach Bush, and his entire administration,
and throw them into federal prison.
D. Impeach Bush, and his entire administration,
and throw them into federal prison only after pretending to give
them a fair trial like the one that convicted Ed Rosenthal.
E. Impeach Bush, and his entire administration,
and throw them into tiny cells in the hot sun at Guantanamo,
deny them access to counsel, declare them enemy combatants, subject
them to military tribunal, strip them of their citizenship, and
deport them to Afghanistan.
Result-100% of respondents chose option
D. (Editors note: Unanimous selection of option D proves that
Americans really are a peace loving people, and that even when
offered a retaliatory and vindictive option, they will choose
what appears to be justice, over revenge.)
Question 2. Do you think public policy
should be determined in secret solely through consultation with
self-interested corporate thieves, as oilman Dick Cheney did
with his absurd 'energy task force?' Do you further believe that
average Americans should have no right to influence national
energy policy, or even to know which corporate thieves formulated
it?
A. No way. Do you think the American
people are idiots? This is what is called a 'no brainer.' The
only question here is why no pollsters have asked this question
before now.
Result: 100% of respondents selected
option A. (Editors note: It was the obvious choice.)
Question 3. Do you support a continued
and ever-increasing reliance on computerized voting machines
that use proprietary software, which means that the accuracy
vote counts cannot be independently verified? Do you support
use of public funds to purchase voting machines which are manufactured
in Nebraska by a corporation with close ties to the Republican
Party, where Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel supposedly
'won' the last election with 83% of the vote? Do you think it
appropriate that Hagel did not bother to disclose his own financial
ties to the company which counted the votes in his own election?
A. Yes
B. No, and I further believe that these
allegations should be investigated. All election results should
be independently verifiable. Otherwise we will have a repeat
of the election scam in Florida that disgraced all of America,
handed the reigns of power in this country over to war mongering
psychopaths, and eviscerated democracy itself.
Result: 100% of respondents selected
option B.
Question 4. Do you think corporations
should be immediately barred from exerting any influence whatsoever
on public policy or elections, thereby negating their terminally
corrupting influence on our democracy?
A. Absolutely
B. Without question
C. Definitely, and as soon as possible
D. Yeah, otherwise they will always find
new and clever ways to screw us
Result: 100% of respondents selected
options A, B, C, and D.
Question 5. How did you react to all
those independently produced homemade posters at the Feb.16th
anti-war demonstration in San Francisco, depicting Bush with
a Hitler moustache, and wearing swastika patches on his sleeve?
A. As a proud American who is determined
to maintain an uncritical respect for authority figures, I was
appalled.
B. As a Christian, I was stunned. I am
willing to accept any and all violations of Christian doctrine,
including violation of Rule No. 1- "Thou Shalt Not Kill,"
provided the President claims to be a Christian. I am not bothered
in the least by the fact that Hitler also claimed to be a good
Christian.
C. Given the nature and scope of Bush's
crimes, his fear mongering, his extensive use of ultra-nationalist
rhetoric, his racist assault on the rights of foreign born citizens,
and his manipulative control of a compliant media to consolidate
his power and frighten citizens into conformity and acceptance
of his bizarre agenda, I thought comparing him to Hitler was
entirely appropriate.
Result: 100% of respondents chose option
C. (Editors note: This unequivocal response verifies the appropriateness
of this proposed headline, which would announce the results of
the poll: "Overwhelming Majority of Americans Think Bush
is a Goose-Stepping Fascist Maniac.")
Paul Dean
is an activist and bass player with the band Blusion.
He lives in Sebastopol, CA. Email: blusion@blusion.com.
This article first appeared in Dissident
Voice .
Yesterday's
Features
Gary Leupp
The
Weekend the World Said No to War:
Notes on the Numbers
Jason Leopold
Powell Warned Bush About
Bloody Price of Unilateral War
Ross Vachon
Joe
Lieberman: Yankee Tartuffe
Ahmad Faruqui
Killing
with Sanctions, Then Bombs
Estimating Civilian Casualties in Iraq War
Reza Ghorashi
Why
War with Iraq?
What Should Iranians Do?
Craig Axford
Environmentalism as Homeland Security
Harvey Wasserman
There's
Nothing Patriotic About It
Ramzi Kysia
Dispatch from Baghdad:
Living Against Disaster
Charles Sullivan
The
Failure of Mass Education
Gilad Atzmon
The Birth of the Tragedy:
On Reason, Justice and the Victim Mentality
Website of the Day
Lysistrata
Project
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
February 22
/ 23, 2003
Laura Flanders
Security Threat?
Bernadette Devlin McAliskey Barred Entry to US
Alexander Cockburn
The Trouble with E-Bombs
Kathy Kelly
Letter from Baghdad
Tight Squeeze
Subcomandate
Marcos
A Universal
No to the War of Fear
William Cook
Armageddon Anxiety
Jo Freeman
Conservative Women
Michael Colby
Howard Dean is No Green
Ben Tripp
Fact-Checking the Constitution
Joanne Mariner
Pets Unite!
Richard Falk and David Krieger
Iraq and the Failures of Democracy
Uri Avnery
War Crimes and Sharon
Ian Williams
John Bolton in Jerusalem
Michael Wolff
How Sanctions Destroyed Iraqi Education
William Hughes
The Zev and Ari Show
Susanna Sonnenberg
Boxing Missoula
Michael Ortiz Hill
Peace and Humility
Anis Shivani
When Kafka Aligns with Orwell
John Mihelich
The Hidden History of Butte's
Working Class
Rich Procter
Bush and His Fabled Gut
Adam Engel
Voice of the Nation
Becky Johnson
The Hopscotch Rebellion
Krieger, Tripp, Ashley
Poets' Basement
Website of
the Weekend
The
Pedro Martinez of Palestine
February 15
/ 16, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Colin
Powell and the Great "Intelligence Fraud"
Rep. Dennis
Kucinich
The Whole World is Watching
Edward Said
A Monumental Hypocrisy
Wouter Hijink
Report from Amsterdam
"War: Do Not Feed!"
Linda Heard
At Last! Proud to be British
Lawrence Ferlinghetti
Taking a Stand on Iraq
Robert Fisk
The Case Against War
Lev Grinberg
Lessons from Israel
A War Without Legitimacy
Chris Floyd
Cold Fronts:
Bush War Profits
Ahmad Faruqui
Stepping Back from the Brink of War
Norman Madarasz
French Kisses from the Citizens of France
Adam Lebowitz
Scott Ritter in Tokyo
Kurt Nimmo
Bring Us the Head of Osama bin Laden
Forrest Hylton
The Revolt in Bolivia
Col. Dan Smith
Irrelevance and Credibility:
Bush, NATO and the UN
Wayne Madsen
The Lies of Tom Lantos
Ranjit Hoskote
The Invisible Modernities of the Islamic World
Emily Zitter-Smith
Who's Safe Now?
An American in Cairo
Rich Procter
Anybody Remember the Powell Doctrine?
Poets Basement:
Eliot
Katz, Scott Handleman, and Bruce Tomczak
Website of the Weekend
Anti-War
Posters
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|