I’m gonna focus on one thing in particular (and hopefully destroy them on it): biased polls and a horrifying abuse of statistics.

If there’s anything that you learn in a basic data management or statistics course, it’s that surveys can be easily engineered to be biased; to produce intentionally skewed results.

That’s what FOX does.

Anger poll

Questions

Take the following poll question as an example:

Does the ‘Reconciliation’ Gambit Make You Angry?

What does that question do, in terms of data collection?

• Sampling bias. The question is clearly targeted at those who feel strongly about the issue, because those are the vocal minorities interested in persuading others of their view. Now, since FOXNews.com is a clearly conservative news source, the visitors to the site will, logically, not include many liberals who would have voted negative to this poll question. As a result, the sample is not representative of the population, producing skewed results.

Choices

What did that question look like on their site?

How biased are the choices?

“You decide”: are the choices biased?

• Yes, yes of course.
• Unsure, but if you’re asking, doesn’t that mean it’s biased?
• No, but maybe it’s biased.

Obviously I’m satirizing their choices. If you read the wording of each option, TWO of the options support the data that FOX wants to collect.

Since when did unsure agree with yes?

Moreover, since when did no contradict no?! “No, it doesn’t make me angry, but they’re still using a loophole.” That’s definitely a biased choice.

The “Other” Choice

All right, so this is probably the choice that someone would pick if they, like me, disagree with all the options and their wording. What if I think “it doesn’t make me angry because it’s not a loophole, it’s a procedure?”

The problem with that is, other is substantially underrepresented when FOX airs results or makes a big deal of them. Right now, 94% say it makes them angry, and that’s the only data they care about when they’re publicizing the results.

Who cares that some extremist decided to write a lengthy explanation of their choice under “other”? That’s not a statistic that matters.

So the “other” choice is just there to give the poll a guise of fairness.

The Extraneous Text

Everything they’ve posted in front of the poll question is designed to steer voters towards one option. For the question above, they asked:

President Obama unveiled his revised health care reform plan on Wednesday. The buzz word is “reconciliation,’ a rarely used legislative maneuver designed to resolve budget differences but one that could also be used to push through the Democrats’ health agenda by a simple majority vote. Are you angry that Obama and the Dems are resorting to using “reconciliation”?

I added emphasis to the key manipulating words above.

I think it’s plainly obvious that words like “maneuver”, “resorting to”, “agenda” (as in hidden agenda) have subtle connotations that the voter’s subconscious mind picks up on.

UPDATE: How could I have forgotten to analyze the word “gambit”? The concise Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “an action or remark calculated to gain an advantage.” You tell me that isn’t a loaded question.

In Short…

That particular poll was biased. Let’s briefly critique another one.

Victory poll

Statisticians would shoot them for this one. Well, not as much as for the previous one.

The question is fine here (except for the ambiguous definition of the term victory), but the choices are terrible. Again, there’s the issue with the “Other (post a comment)” choice because it is far easier for someone to pick another option than to take the effort to write a comment — that choice basically means nothing.

Irresponsible or is it just me?

The “No” option is an exaggeration. 2700 pages, apparently, is a lie (or a gross exaggeration). The official H.R. 4872 (reconciliation) bill is 2310 pages, and the Senate bill previously passed by the Senate weighed in at around 2400.

Sampling bias

Again, this poll will not yield accurate results for three reasons (I’ll admit that they overlap):

1. The visitor demographic of FOXNews.com is largely conservative. This may not be the same proportion as in all of the United States.
2. Furthermore, through the efforts of liberals who are attempting to get their voice heard, young Twitter users are flocking to this poll to vote “Yes”. THESE votes will, again, fail to reflect the population, which is perhaps why this is labelled “not a scientific poll” by their own admission.
3. Lastly, the unsure option is quite unimportant in this poll because those who are unsure, generally, are not the vocal participants in these kinds of forums. A lot of Americans are unsure because they don’t know all of the facts, and this poll simply cannot deal with that part of the population that is underrepresented.

How to spin the results

Currently, “Yes” and “No” are nearly tied at 47% and 49% respectably. What would happen if “Yes” had the majority vote?

Given the wording of the choice, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to claim that “over 95% of respondents believe that the bill is flawed”.

After all, even the “Yes” voters have to concede that it’s “not perfect”.

What is this. Yes, I’ll readily concede that it’s not perfect, but that’s because I like the Canadian system better. There might only be one way to be perfect but infinite ways to be wrong or imperfect, and putting that there doesn’t help anyone determine how to get better health care reform. Moreover, it deprives voters of the chance to vote “Yes, it’s awesome.”

What can we do about this?

Nothing. If “freedom of the press” and “freedom of expression” are interpreted in such an unlimited way, any of these ugly tactics can be defended as their view on things.

Freedoms come with responsibilities, of course, and it is irresponsible for this kind of polling and the kind of news reports that FOX News airs to claim to be “fair and balanced”. Boycotting FOX News doesn’t really work, because one would be leaving FOXNews.com with all the conservatives who would love to dominate their polls.

“Fair and balanced” might well be a joke; it would be a perfect sarcastic tagline for FOX.

Liked this post?

Subscribe to my RSS feed, via e-mail using this form, or share this post with the world.

Remember when I was talking about how Western media distorts everything? (To refresh your mind, read another post about the conflict.)

What took so long?

Hey, are you following me on Twitter?

If you were, you would have known minutes ago.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Another excellent video from TED!

That having been said, enjoy this video of the American Vice Presidential debate yesterday evening, in case you missed it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Let’s start with something about the environment:

Andy the Engineer: “China’s success has been built on the back of the environment – they have ruined beautiful rivers, strip mined scenic mountains and poured every type of vile and disgusting exhaust you can imagine into the air – and the Olympic Games will broadcast this to the world.”

Let’s word this more accurately and less xenophobically, shall we? It is the success of the WESTERN WORLD (including Canada — we have our fair share of this blame) that has been built on the back of China’s environment. And India’s. And Taiwan’s. And Japan’s. And … well, basically every early-industrial nation with cheap labour.

I’m fed up with people whose entire wealth is based on the use and abuse of people and resources in other countries who then turn around and act as if they are morally superior to those same exploited people. Grow up.

- MichaelWH

See what they have to say after the jump.

More on the environment:

Beijing reminded me of LA a few years ago. People are having joyful picnic because it was a brighter day than any other normal days. When I went to the top of Griffin Park and saw the whole LA sky filled with dark smog. Welcome to the real world of pollution. Beijing is not the only one. Toronto is getting there too.

- Opinioner (Dartmouth, NS)

Another comment on the same article:

China is still fighting to get out of poverty.

Globally, the share of people living on a dollar (US) a day or less plummeted from 40% in 1981 to 18% in 2004. China’s growth alone has lifted more than 400 million people out of poverty. These numbers are from Freed Zakaria’s recent book “The Post-American World”.

No other nation in the world in the entire human history has done so much good in such short a period.

- flu888 (Mississauga, ON)

I think I’m starting to show my bias. So let’s read some comments from those who do nothing other than criticize.

The smog in Beijing is the tip of the iceberg. Although still not the polluters of the United States, they are on an accelerated path to capture the crown as the world’s worst polluters. Remember, at 1.3 billion people, once technology and wealth spread around the country, they will have 4 times as many people polluting as the US. And because they are still in many ways a developing nation, environmental controls will be the least of their concerns, they are still just trying to catch up. They all want what every american [sic] has, and will take the short cuts [sic] to get there. Green actions are only taken in the countries that can afford them and are now self conscious of their own pollution. China is neither[.]

- Klaatu (Windsor, ON)

And how about the topic of censorship?

I don’t understand why the Chinese government block Fa Lun Gong’s webiste. We Chinese living overseas have access to their information, but who believes what they say? Nobody. I think the government should be more self-confident.

- JackCBC (Toronto, ON)

Okay. Some people have strange things to say, too.

Is it just me or does the PEW survey from last week says [sic] more than these journalists? If you don’t remember, the survey concluded Chinese are the most confident in their government’s job than any other country in the world, with the second being Australia. Who are some of the least confident? Britain, France and US.

Put yourself in Chinese shoes, you are confident in your goverment [sic] and optimstic [sic] about the future, but those people from overseas who are extremly [sic] unhappy with their own country’s direction and goverment [sic] are trying to tell you your goverment [sic] should be more like them. Will you think “hey, good idea” or “what a bunch of hypocritical self-centered bigots”?

- iewgnem (Toronto, ON)

All comments are used under the Fair Dealing doctrine.

After reading all of these comments, it’s only right for you to contribute your thoughts. Navigate to the CBC articles (following the links at the beginning of this post) to comment there or send us your thoughts by commenting on this post.

I am not in support of any efforts to politicize the Games, and am especially opposed to groups such as Reporters sans frontières (Reporters Without Borders) (how could they call themselves reporters?!?!) who are funded and operated in order to specifically destabilize foreign governments.

It has sparked outrage and has also made some feel that this “terrorist” is being treated fairly.

You should know, though, that Pentagon papers accidentally released in February of this year showed that even though Khadr was present during the firefight in which a grenade killed a U.S. soldier, there was no evidence they had which proved that he threw the grenade.

Watch and vote.

EDIT: apparently YouTube removed the interrogation video. Hmm…

It seems like Bush’s popularity is ever decreasing. With the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the denial of habeas corpus to detainees at Guantánamo Bay is unconstitutional and that those prisoners have a right to challenge their imprisonment in the civilian courts, it’s no longer necessarily true that “the law doesn’t extend to Cuba”.

Though the rulings did not outlaw the prison outright, the rulings do somewhat approach the human rights issues that the U.S. is responsible for. And how has “Reporters Without Borders” reacted to this news? As of June 13, 2008, they haven’t, but still have half of their web site dedicated to attacking China and supporting the boycott of the Olympic games. Look at (click) this screenshot; do they even mention Guantánamo Bay?

Now, back on topic. This sort of decision is truly what the judicial branch of government is supposed to do: discuss the constitutional issues and re-think the policies of the executive and legislative branches. Unfortunately, Bush wants to bypass this ruling through an act of Congress.

And how does that make you feel?

Find more about this on Google News, subscribe to our feed, or write a comment.

What would products cost if the US banned trade with China as part of “sanctions”? What would be the economic impact? How would consumers respond, or more importantly, how would 2+ billion Chinese people react?

Consider these questions, and get back to me (using the comments feature).

Breaking news – Elections Canada claims the Conservative Party violated elections law when they spent money for campaigns in excess of the permitted limit.

This information should be covered by Nikola’s Musik, but it seems he’s not watching the news tonight.

Read more about this at the Toronto Star.

A pro-China demonstration on Parliament Hill on Sunday attracted about 5,000 Chinese-Canadians from Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto eager to show support for the troubled Beijing Olympics.

The planning of this event had been orchestrated online, facilitated by thousands of willing volunteers who wanted to show their support for China. There were some hiccups with the chartering of buses, when (allegedly) an opposing entity threatened the busing company. However, sources state that a Chinese-Canadian businessman arranged (out of his own pockets) for more than 30 buses to transport demonstrators and the elderly to Parliament Hill.

This event is an instance of powerful Chinese patriotism which has brought thousands together against “media distortion” and attempts to disrupt China’s hosting of the Olympics.

A few hours ago, approximately 5000 protestors also gathered in Australia for the same cause.

Isn’t it strange, though, that news of these events aren’t on the media… aren’t found on the homepage of Google News (the last time I checked)… aren’t even mentioned?

Interestingly, Jack Cafferty (whom I had respected previously) on CNN made a comment that “…they (Chinese) are basically the same bunch goons and thugs they have been in the past fifty years.” Absolutely intolerable!

Watch him make his offensive comment:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Or, you can download a H.264 QuickTime movie.

Click here to view the embedded video.

You can download the above clip in an MP4 format (H.264 and AAC) suitable for the iPod or downloading.

Here’s something about media bias:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And, of course, the follow-up to the above video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And more of the Tibetan violence!

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here’s an example of someone who is strongly biased against China, and who has uploaded more than 120 videos, many of which are anti-China. (Well, anything that is against the government of China is anti-China.) Interestingly, a lot of this user’s uploads violate copyright (as do many videos on YouTube) and do not qualify for fair use, yet are not being removed. (You’d think that if someone uploaded more than 120 copyrighted video clips, they’d be flagged or something.)

On March 29, 2008, several hundred Chinese students and Chinese patriots gathered in the Yonge-Dundas Square in downtown Toronto for a pro-China rally in support of their homeland. Unsurprisingly, regardless of how peaceful this rally was, it was depicted as a conflicting protest by some biased media. Furthermore, a day later (today), few if any major television stations even discuss it.

Yet, a few days prior, another group of several hundred Tibetans organized a “protest march”, walking around the streets of Toronto, and this protest managed to get on the air and stay there. Unsurprisingly, Western media appears to be (and is) pro-Tibetan.

Allow me to first quote a paragraph from an article titled “Over 1,000 Tibetans Hold Protest March in Toronto“:

“Toronto, Canada (AHN) – Over a thousand people, led by Buddhist monks, held a rally at Canada’s capital city (?) Monday to call for freedom for Tibet. To express their strong emotions over the killing of hundreds of their countrymen back home, the Toronto-based Tibetans laid down on the streets, waved Tibetan flags and photos of victims of violence in Lhasa and wore Free Tibet sweaters.”

Maybe the fact that these sorts of protests around the world are led by monks supports China’s claim that the Dalai Lama is orchestrating the riots.

I would then question whether the author of this article knows what the capital of Canada is.

Let me quote some (yes, these are only one side of the story) comments on the CTV web site:

“As a [C]anadian I totally support ‘peaceful’ protest in Tibet, but those violent demonstrators killed innocent people, burning the stores and looting. Those kind of demonstrators should be treated same as terrorists like 9.11 in New York City. I hope that our gover[n]ment should not send any “Tibet statement” to encourage those situation and supports the declared policy of the Chinese government to protect the lives and property of its citizens from violent demonstrators with minimum use of force. We can’t put double standard for the same violent behaviour.” -Peter Kary

–

“If you ask any chinese in Canada, I think most of us will support the chinese government this time. We are coming from China, we all know what is happening in China and the west. We watch all the news reported from China, Hong Kong and the west.

“If you ask the people inside Tibet, over 90% will support one China. The West now only focus on the 10% of Tibetans who want Independence. There are 56 nations in China, Tibet is one of the 56 nations, we all want One China.

“We all sure that Dala Lama is a liar this time.

“We are Not supporting ‘China 1989′, but we ALL support ‘China 2008′.” -A group of people from Hong Kong living in Toronto

–

“Surprisingly the result of ‘Tibet incidence’ is not about Tibet. It has polarized the opinion of Chinese and Westerners. The Chinese (in China and overseas) generally believes that the West is trying to tarnish China’s image. The West is trying to force its opinion on China and Chinese people.” -lianwee

–

“Let’s put away our daggers for China or our reverence for the Dalai Lama and try to find out what the truth is for a moment. In an article titled ‘Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth’ by Michael Parenti, it notes that Tibet was ‘a despotic retrograde theocracy of serfdom and poverty, so damaging to the human spirit, where vast wealth was accumulated by a favored few who lived high and mighty off the blood, sweat, and tears of the many.’” -brian

–

“Do any of you have any slight idea what the old Tibet looked like before 1950? Do any of you know slightly about Chinese and Tibetan history? When Tibet came part of China? … I respect Dalai Lama and I’m amazed on how he’s transformed himself from a Lama to a modern spiritual figure with a huge influence to Tibetans and the world.

I doubt he personally organized the world-wise demonstrations on March 10th followed by the riot. But they were clearly organized events. The problem was that when the riot started to broke out on March 14 in Lhasa, banks, schools and Han people owned stores were either smashed, or burned down. Some of burned properties with people inside! The victims burned to death not only have Hans, but also Tibetan shop clerks. Han people were beaten in the street; a woman’s ear was cut off by a rioter. These were no longer peaceful demonstrations. There are the crimes committed to ordinary citizens. Any country has law and order, these kind of riot have to be stopped. People committed crime will have to face the justice.” -Gordon

–

“Brook, come on, when [was] Tibet a nation or was a country? Tibet was already part of China in Yuan Dynasty and Qing Dynasty, so in recent hundreds years, Tibet has been always part of China. [H]ow much do you really know about the Dalai Lama other than his
displayed charm? It is worth checking out an article by Micheal Backman on ‘Behind Dalai Lama’s holy cloak’.” -AndyToronto

–

“… I’m sorry to say not all monks are true and honest as we like to think them. ‘True’ monks don’t promote their supporters to go around killing innocent people by setting everything on fire and say its a ‘peaceful’ protest.” -Ann

Then, allow me to talk about the real event on March 29. The students here in Toronto decided that they had had enough of the twisted version of events portrayed by Western media, and they wanted to organize a peaceful rally for support.

Patriotic music, Chinese & Canadian flags, chants of “One China!”… totally peaceful and conflict-free until a group of Tibetans decided to organize an anti-protest.

Those Tibetans are the same ones who claim that the students who participated in the rally “are visa students… who are being controlled by the Chinese Consulate…”

What can we conclude? Well, we can definitely see that the methods used by both sides correspond with their ideals.

• The Tibetan monks incite instability and doubt.
• The Chinese students in Canada promoted unity and peace.

The Chinese students didn’t burn down shops, cutting the ears of women, looting stores and businesses, or rioting. They wanted to show unity. At the same time, many other similar rallies are occurring all around North America, where the Chinese population is high.

The message is clear: “Beijing 2008… One World, One Dream… One China.”

Many of us may be wondering, how could Obama possibly be elected to the White House with this less-than-rudimentary understanding of the world? Clearly, this is not an issue with Hillary Clinton, who has travelled to more than a hundred nations, or John McCain, who has decades of experience in politics and the military.

The answer isn’t that he is well-balanced. The answer isn’t that he was less involved in politics prior to his campaign.

The answer is simply that people are disregarding this sort of mistake. They don’t care that a presidential candidate doesn’t know of the political system of the second largest country in the world. They don’t care that this presidential candidate has an unrealistic view of American politics.

What they do see in Obama is:

• youth and energy
• inexperience
• “a [short] history of right choices”
• geek-friendly

He is definitely inexperienced, and that cannot be refuted by anyone on any side. How long has he been in politics? Only since the husband of Jeri Ryan (Seven of Nine on Star Trek: Voyager) lost when his divorce records with Jeri Ryan were involuntarily publicized. In other words, Obama’s sole opponent was involved in a scandal. In such a case, how could Obama have lost?

His short history of right choices doesn’t show that he will make more right choices in the future. This is an illogical connection which he is making, and which he is pushing to his supporters. Simply because he has made some right choices in the previous 5 or so years doesn’t mean that he will deal with the stresses of the Presidency, and does not demonstrate that he is qualified to lead the United States. Certainly, he isn’t the sort of person who would ordinarily be elected to the Supreme Official with Veto Powers.

But what appeals to a lot of younger voters is that he’s geek-friendly. He actually understands technology and the Internet, and supports the net neutrality argument. I’m not going to say much more about this.

You should listen to the LSAT Logic in Everyday Life podcast. A recent episode, “No ‘There’ There” includes analysis of the Spitzer scandal, Ferraro’s comments about Obama’s race, and also offensive remarks from Rev. Wright (with whom Obama is associated).