The herald poll is a fruitcake

Today the Herald released the final results of its final poll. My phone rang last week, making me one of the 800 people they polled.

To my dismay, the Herald released early results of its poll, based on 302 of 800 respondents, despite this being highly likely to affect the results. This also surprised DPF and Left and Lefter.

Seems to me the Herald is more interested in creating polls to sell newspapers, than accurately reporting public opinion. If it was an attempt to drum up more column inches out of Brash's speech, or even tacitly support his proposals, the attempt appears to have failed, even though they asked some mightily leading questions.

When asked which party I would vote for if an election was held tomorrow I said "Alliance". In any case, as a political geek with an interest in polls, I knew that showing my support for a small party would show up more about the poll than supporting a major party (not that I would in any case).

I was then asked if I knew the subject of Don Brash's latest speech. I immediately clarified whether they were asking me whether I knew the subject of Brash's speech or whether I agreed with his proposals. They were asking me what his speech was about. Considering the questions that followed, I thought this question was more than a little leading.

I was then asked whether I thought welfare was the most important "problem" facing New Zealand, one of the important "problems"...or not an issue. Describing welfare as a "problem" is leading also. I said it was one of the important problems, but for entirely different reason to Brash - I think many benefits are too low. While the question is open to different interpretations I knew this was unlikely to be represented in any reporting of the poll. When I was asked what issue did I think was the most important I replied "Student loans" - surely it would have been better practice to ask this question BEFORE mentioning Brash?

I was then asked about whether I supported some specific ideas in the speech. I was disappointed not to be offered a scale. I replied 'strongly opposed' to these three questions just to make sure! Interestingly, the Herald did not appear to print the final results of these questions today, based on what I could find in the online version, even though the Herald reported the following on the 29th, based on meaningless partial results.

But some specific policy ideas found little favour, particularly his view that adopting out babies should be a more acceptable option than it is now. A majority of 74.5 per cent disagreed, while 15.7 per cent agreed.

The opposition to his policy of stopping women on the DPB getting any extra money if they became pregnant while on the benefit was 44.1 per cent. However, 46.9 per cent agreed with him.

Dr Brash said he would make it harder to get the sickness benefit - a view supported by 56.6 per cent and opposed by 33.6 per cent.

I wonder what the full results said? Given the final results of the poll showed greater support for the left, I would expect the percentages supporting Brash's policies to fall. One wonders what results would have ensured if they had asked relevant, but different questions. "Do you support refusing extra help to families with newborn babies on account of the family gaining its primary income from the DPB?"

I never regarded Brash's advocacy of encouraging adoption to be a serious proposal, as I believe this is far more likely to be a sop to anti-abortion National supporters who regard Brash's socially liberal instincts with suspicion. But they need not worry, as Brash is likely to flip flop further, based on this voting record on the Civil Union Bill.

I would be very keen to get my hands on the full statistical breakdown of this poll, as I would like to have a closer look at the questions and the order of questions. ATM I am relying on memory and a few notes I scribbed while I was on the phone. Does anyone know of a link of the web where I might be able to access this?

Left and Lefter suggests an alternative poll based on google results. I wonder why Labourities Just Left and NZ Political Comments fail to list the Alliance in their reports of the poll, but include the Progressives. The Alliance (0.6%) got three times as much support as the Progs!(0.2%) - grin! - :)

TV: Phone in Polls and 'Loud' Advertisements

Found a couple of interesting discussions over at ReinventingTVNZ

1. The Fallacy of Phone in Polls
It pleased me greatly to read on Span's blog that someone has finally lodged an official broadcasting complaint over the presenters drawing inappropriate conclusions from the ‘results’ of phone in polls.

Despite their veneer of democracy, phone in polls are a form of plutocracy, a mere ‘democracy of disposable income’.

In the context of this complaint, it would be very interesting if someone asked a parliamentary question asking how much income TVNZ gained from the use of such polls. It may be harder to get such information out of a private broadcaster such as TV3, but the exposure of the TVNZ figure would be a useful thing to bully them with. At 99c a call (at least) it probably represents a nice little earner. It would also be interesting to find out how many phone numbers calling the Close Up at 7 polls were registered as coming from Parliament Buildings! I bet it’s more than a few.

It may be going a bit far, but it has concerned me for a while that these polls may lead to an erosion of people’s expectations of democracy. If phone in polls become an accepted way of gauging public opinion, and Susan Wood's comments on such polls encourage this, how long is it before it is suggested that such polls may be a way to ‘encourage participation’ in more serious polls over local body issues, even elections themselves?? Free and fair would not even come into it, and such polls would be at the mercy of a cynical public relations industry.

And who started this scourge of democratic plastic? As I remember, the first programme to heavily push phone in polling was….Big Brother. So I blame Big Brother.

2. The Ads Are Too Bloody Loud
I have always wondered why TV advertising usually seems louder than the programming. As it is annoying, I assumed it was a deliberate ploy to make people pay more attention to the ads. I find Sky One an especially offensive offender, as even its station promos seem 'loud'. Even with the lightening use of the mute button, I often find the sudden two second long blast of sound uncomfortable. It’s the sudden change, not the volume that is the problem.

Apparently this effect is caused by advertising producers applying a form of ‘audio compression’ so there is more sound power in the range where the ear is most sensitive, in order to increase its audible impact. The broadcasting standards authority in Australia is apparently looking at this issue. Our broadcasting authorities should look at it too.