Media Lavishes Attention On Bogus Zogby Internet Poll While Ignoring Gallup Poll

[Karmadillo]

Is the media right to do this?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/11/media_lavishes.php

Media Lavishes Attention On Bogus Internet Poll Showing Hillary Losing To Repubs -- And Ignores Reputable Poll Finding Opposite
November 27, 2007 -- 11:03 AM EST // //

Ladies and gentlemen, a tale of two polls.

Yesterday two polling firms -- Zogby and Gallup -- released surveys of the presidential race that offered strikingly different conclusions. The Zogby poll found that Hillary is trailing five leading GOP candidates in general election matchups. The Gallup Poll, by contrast, found that Hillary, and to a lesser degree Obama, has a slight to sizable lead over the top GOP contenders.

A couple of other things that distinguish these two polls: The Zogby one is an online poll, a notoriously unreliable method, while the Gallup one is a telephone poll. And, as Charles Franklin of Pollster.com observed yesterday, the Zogby poll is completely out of sync with multiple other national polls finding Hillary with a lead over the GOP candidates. The Zogby poll actually found that Mike Huckabee is leading Hillary in a national matchup. The Gallup findings were in line with most other surveys.

I don't need to tell you which poll got all the media attention. Do I?

The Zogby survey was covered repeatedly on CNN, earned coverage from MSNBC, Fox News, and Reuters and was covered by multiple other smaller outlets.

By contrast, I can't find a single example of any reporter or commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI. While the Zogby poll was mentioned by multiple reporters and pundits, the only mentions the Gallup poll got on TV were from Hillary advisers who had to bring it up themselves on the air in order to inject it into the conversation.

more...

[Flabbergasted]

1. interesting.

[Captain Hilts]

2. The media likes a good story. Hillary's ratings plummeting would be one. nt

[ellenfl]

7. wait a minute now. wasn't that you who said yesterday that

pollsters would not fudge their results? then how can both polls be right!

ellen fl

[Captain Hilts]

13. This question was about the media's motivation, not the pollsters. And, yes, some pollsters DOfudge

legitimate pollsters release their data. I said that too.

[PATRICK]

3. The Bush people

including Little Boots himself publicly came out and said Hillary was the leader and it was time to attack- in so many words.

I don't know how skilled they are in reverse psychology anymore so I think this is pretty much what they want for now. Don't let Hillary stampede the party into unity too soon and don't erase her problems so much that her "inevitability" becomes an actual 2008 coronation.

[Dancing_Dave]

4. ZOGBY IS MUCH BETTER!!!

Gallup is still using a completely out of date and biased land-line phone methodology-- ignoring the whole younger end of the population that so commonly has only a cell phone and a computer, and no land line.

Forget Gallup. Zogby is trying out up to date methodology which can really catch the trends in our digitalized culture. Zogby may not have worked out all the kinks yet, but they are much more on top of things.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Thanks for the smile. Excellent satire of the 'land-lines are outdated' cranks

[edbermac]

5. "There are lies, damned lies, and internet polls."

:patriot:

[sendero]

6. While I understand..

... that internet polls are not scientific, Gallup is, was and always has been a total joke.

They ALWAYS show Bush's approval rating 4-6% higher than any other poll, they ALWAYS skew towards the Republicans.

[ellenfl]

8. thank you. my take on polls exactly. eom

[Dancing_Dave]

10. Gallup sucks

And they're getting more unreliable all the time.

They just don't get it about participatory internet culture. They just don't get about the deep bias of running telephone polls when less than 10% of people will even chose to participate in such a poll anymore, because it sounds to much like some telemarketing or market research call. Less than 10% of those who are still using land line phones at all!

Hillary must really be getting desperate if she's driven to use those Gallup bozos to prop up her credibility.

[Lucinda]

12. If it skews towards the Reps, why are Hillary and Obama shown beating them at all?

[sendero]

14. I have no answer to your question...

.. I'm talking about the polling of 2004 and 2006. You don't have to take my word for it, everyone here who watches polls knows it and I'm sure you can find historical polls on the net.

I'm not endorsing or repudiating this particular result, I'm just saying that Gallup sucks and they always have and everyone who pays attention knows it.

[TeamJordan23]

9. hmm...attack the media when your candidate is struggling (reminds me of Dubya supporters). nm

[suston96]

11. And then there is the "inevitability" thing.....

The media claiming that Hillary said that her nomination was "inevitable."

Uh, as soon as that Katie Couric interview is available we will see if Hillary actually used that word: "inevitable."

Good thing she didn't say anything about inventing the internet.

And Chris Matthews and so many others touting that "interactive" (internet) poll by Zogby that is some 10 days old... that says 5 Republican candidates beat Hillary?

And ignoring a poll by Gallup that says just the opposite? And also ignoring a new Rasmussen poll today that shows Obama and Edwards seriously lagging Hillary.

Nice work Tweety (Chris Matthews)! Welcome to the ranks of the biased media....!

[LittleClarkie]

16. I thought Zogby's sample was supposed to be quite large

10,000 vs. under a thousand. I don't think it can be discounted.

And I thought Mr. Penn's denial of it was rather funny, since it showed Hillary as being in trouble. God forbid a poll that shows her to be in trouble might be right.