The mainstream media had a big challenge ahead of them and that was how could they provide Democrats with cover for not supporting the border wall, since they were clearly for it before Trump arrived. Their arguments were weak, so they finally threw out new information hoping it would stick. They said that according to “independent” research, like with The Pew Research Center and NPR, that most Americans don’t want a border wall anymore. How could someone argue against what Democrats are doing in blocking the wall if most Americans agree with them? But do they?
I had already reviewed the studies they were using and found they only polled around 1,200 people which is .0008% of registered voters. I’ve been involved in research for a few decades and I promise you that no credible researcher would consider these reports statistically viable, but the mainstream media ran with them anyway because the research fit their narrative. They knew it was easy to mislead the readers and viewers because they wouldn’t pay attention to the data. The reports also didn't include the percentage of people who said they didn’t know whether a wall is necessary (the undetermined), which distorts the data. It would’ve been extremely easy to add to their reports, so the question is why didn’t they include it?
As with many issues, including the border wall in this case, it’s not a problem unless it’s your problem. It's easy to sit back in places like Chicago and New York City where there's a massive population base and respond to a survey that a wall isn't necessary; especially since these areas hate Trump so their responses wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the wall at all. If the people who bought the research wanted it to show that most Americans don’t support a wall, the research companies would poll more people from these areas which is probably what they did, but we don’t know, because they didn’t show us. The people who are affected by the wall and those who oversee securing the border, want the wall, so if most Americans truly don’t want it because they think border security doesn’t affect them, then it might be time for some personal reflection.
Media outlets use so-called "independent research organizations" all the time to back up their agenda, and most people fall for it. One time I caught all the liberal mainstream media, including ABC Nightly News, sharing a report that they said came from The Huffington Post. Most people recognize the name, so it appeared to be a credible source. But I dug into the research and found that The Huffington Post got the report, which had negative information about conservatives, from a small college in New Jersey. I contacted the college and was able to find the department who conducted the research, and they were kind enough to share with me that their researchers polled 600 people all of which who lived in New Jersey. Think about it. The report became a national story about the opinions of people across our country and it was based on only 600 people living in New Jersey. I wrote several emails to some of the larger media outlets about how they misled Americans and should recant the storyline they were pushing, but of course no one ever got back to me. I wasn’t expecting anything, but it just made me feel better to at least call them out.
When it comes to research that is shared by various sources, it's important to see how many people were polled and if they don't share where they polled from, the report is pretty much useless. If a client hired a research firm in hopes of getting bad reviews about Fox News, they’d poll more people in the northeast. If the client wanted to show how important Americans feel the 2nd Amendment is, they’d poll more people in the southeast. If someone wanted to confirm that many Americans are crazy, they’d poll more Californians. 😊
Research is now a tool to push narratives. To support stories that fit the media’s ideology. It’s so sad that political bias has permeated everything around us.
I had already reviewed the studies they were using and found they only polled around 1,200 people which is .0008% of registered voters. I’ve been involved in research for a few decades and I promise you that no credible researcher would consider these reports statistically viable, but the mainstream media ran with them anyway because the research fit their narrative. They knew it was easy to mislead the readers and viewers because they wouldn’t pay attention to the data. The reports also didn't include the percentage of people who said they didn’t know whether a wall is necessary (the undetermined), which distorts the data. It would’ve been extremely easy to add to their reports, so the question is why didn’t they include it?
As with many issues, including the border wall in this case, it’s not a problem unless it’s your problem. It's easy to sit back in places like Chicago and New York City where there's a massive population base and respond to a survey that a wall isn't necessary; especially since these areas hate Trump so their responses wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the wall at all. If the people who bought the research wanted it to show that most Americans don’t support a wall, the research companies would poll more people from these areas which is probably what they did, but we don’t know, because they didn’t show us. The people who are affected by the wall and those who oversee securing the border, want the wall, so if most Americans truly don’t want it because they think border security doesn’t affect them, then it might be time for some personal reflection.
Media outlets use so-called "independent research organizations" all the time to back up their agenda, and most people fall for it. One time I caught all the liberal mainstream media, including ABC Nightly News, sharing a report that they said came from The Huffington Post. Most people recognize the name, so it appeared to be a credible source. But I dug into the research and found that The Huffington Post got the report, which had negative information about conservatives, from a small college in New Jersey. I contacted the college and was able to find the department who conducted the research, and they were kind enough to share with me that their researchers polled 600 people all of which who lived in New Jersey. Think about it. The report became a national story about the opinions of people across our country and it was based on only 600 people living in New Jersey. I wrote several emails to some of the larger media outlets about how they misled Americans and should recant the storyline they were pushing, but of course no one ever got back to me. I wasn’t expecting anything, but it just made me feel better to at least call them out.
When it comes to research that is shared by various sources, it's important to see how many people were polled and if they don't share where they polled from, the report is pretty much useless. If a client hired a research firm in hopes of getting bad reviews about Fox News, they’d poll more people in the northeast. If the client wanted to show how important Americans feel the 2nd Amendment is, they’d poll more people in the southeast. If someone wanted to confirm that many Americans are crazy, they’d poll more Californians. 😊
Research is now a tool to push narratives. To support stories that fit the media’s ideology. It’s so sad that political bias has permeated everything around us.
RSS Feed