By Robert Heeg
Easy targets for the media, the laughing stock of comedians; after several widely errors, trust in election polls seems to be at an all-time low. Not entirely fair, argues Jon Puleston, who demonstrates that the pollsters often get it right. That doesn’t let them off the hook though.
By Carlo Stokx
Never in Dutch Parliamentary history have the General Elections in the Netherlands drawn as much international attention as the one that took place last week.
by Kathy Frankovic, former director of surveys at CBS News and a member of ESOMAR’s Professional Standards Committee
Election polling is the most visible part of market, opinion and social research. It carries the heavy burden for getting things right, but its previous successes have also brought high and perhaps unearned expectations for its accuracy. This year, and the U.S. presidential election in particular, provides a good example of what happens when people forget the limitations of polls, that sampling and non-response may matter, and that ascribing too much precision to polling estimates in times of change can make pundits and journalists look as silly as the pollsters they berate.
By Finn Raben
Last year, in a piece entitled “Opinion – Sedition or Seduction”, I commented on the rise of the “opinion culture”, and the fact that we now live in an era that legitimises putting opinions into the public domain with little reflection on their veracity, or the implications of offering them.
The extraordinary ease with which such commentary can be made public – facilitated by the explosion in social media, and further supported by broadcast media – means the corresponding “duty of care” in establishing provenance, applying due diligence/rigour, providing evidence and reporting responsibly, have also become exponentially more important … but is this happening in real life?
In addition, the very nature of global, instant social media favours short, simple messaging, often resulting in quite complex situations being viewed from one, popular and over-simplified perspective – and often a perspective that is a propaganda tool.
On 18 March 2003, the late Charles Kenneday – then leader of the Liberal Democrats in the UK – outlined why he did not believe there was a justifiable case for going into war in Iraq, and that public support for the decision was minimal:
“There is huge public anxiety in Britain … only a tiny fraction ever call into question the Prime Minister’s sincerity in this matter … but much as they detest Saddam’s brutality, they are not persuaded that the case for war has been adequately made.”
His party was the only party to vote unanimously against the proposed military action, for which he was heavily criticised – both within and without Parliament. He was also repeatedly asked to retract his position, and when he refused, was roundly attacked in the media. The subsequent invasion of Iraq divided the British electorate, and the net result of the invasion cannot be positioned as a successful example of either “regime change” or indeed “democracy”.
Finn Raben is Director General at ESOMAR. Connect with him on Twitter @Finn01
If you’re an ESOMAR member you can read the full article in MyESOMAR in the digital copy of Research World. If you are not a member of ESOMAR you can join and receive a free copy of Research World 6 times a year or alternatively you can sign up for a subscription of the magazine in our publications store.