PDA

View Full Version : Why Polls Dont Matter: Frank Luntz on Manipulation (Video)




DeadheadForPaul
10-21-2007, 11:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYOcj8gZzRQ

Frank Luntz, the pollster on Fox for today's debate, explains on Penn and Teller how he can manipulate people with keywords

stones88
10-21-2007, 11:54 PM
Bullshit episodes are back on youtube! Awesome.

BuddyRey
10-22-2007, 12:08 AM
WOW!!! I'm stunned. Luntz talks openly about the American public being a gaggle of mouth-breathing idiots, yet FOX News entrusts him with giving the same idiots "fair and balanced" debate coverage?!?!?! :eek::eek::eek:

Duckman
10-22-2007, 12:12 AM
Luntz and Fox News probably share laughs about the 'sheeple' when the cameras aren't rolling.

dircha
10-22-2007, 12:13 AM
Polling is a statistical science. While I'm pleased you are taking a rational, skeptical approach, I have to say that after watching the video you linked, I am very disappointed in Penn's presentation of the issues at hand here. Remember, Penn is first and foremost an entertainer, and while he likes to think that he talks the talk, I assure you, Penn is no scientist, and certainly no academic.

All of the issues discussed are well known and are covered extensively in the literature. Yes, polling can be and is used to manipulate and obscure issues, and it is important that you be aware of this in order to be a discerning consumer of information.

But credible polling agencies take many measures to safeguard against these sources of bias and inaccuracy, and document their polling method, the sample size, the confidence interval, as well as their margin of error for anyone to inspect.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Take the time to inform yourself. Campaigns and credible publications don't pay polling agencies to make up numbers; if they wanted to make up numbers they could do it themselves. No, they pay polling agencies because they produce results that work and are proven on the free market.

We ignore reality at our own peril. Try as we might, we can't win the nomination on fond wishes and pixie dust.

mport1
10-22-2007, 12:18 AM
I love Bullshit!

mport1
10-22-2007, 12:21 AM
Polling is a statistical science. While I'm pleased you are taking a rational, skeptical approach, I have to say that after watching the video you linked, I am very disappointed in Penn's presentation of the issues at hand here. Remember, Penn is first and foremost an entertainer, and while he likes to think that he talks the talk, I assure you, Penn is no scientist, and certainly no academic.

All of the issues discussed are well known and are covered extensively in the literature. Yes, polling can be and is used to manipulate and obscure issues, and it is important that you be aware of this in order to be a discerning consumer of information.

But credible polling agencies take many measures to safeguard against these sources of bias and inaccuracy, and document their polling method, the sample size, the confidence interval, as well as their margin of error for anyone to inspect.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Take the time to inform yourself. Campaigns and credible publications don't pay polling agencies to make up numbers; if they wanted to make up numbers they could do it themselves. No, they pay polling agencies because they produce results that work and are proven on the free market.

We ignore reality at our own peril. Try as we might, we can't win the nomination on fond wishes and pixie dust.

True, as a teaching assistant for business statistics, it is ludicrous to just be casting off polls. When done correctly, they are extremely accurate. However, one should always make sure that the methods of the polls are accurate since they can easily be manipulated.

TheIndependent
10-22-2007, 12:23 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYOcj8gZzRQ

Frank Luntz, the pollster on Fox for today's debate, explains on Penn and Teller how he can manipulate people with keywords

Luntz was also censured once by a national association of polling organizations for manipulation. Listen carefully to the way he frames Paul after the debate, then how he treats Giuliani. He's a master manipulator.

He's also known to have an extreme, EXTREME disdain for libertarians and conservatives like Paul.

dmspilot00
10-22-2007, 07:45 PM
Did anyone catch this: Right after the debate, Luntz asked his focus group if they thought Rudy Giuliani won the debate. About three hands went up.

Twenty minutes later, after 'discrediting' Ron Paul, Luntz said, "I didn't really ask the right question earlier...how many of you think that Rudy Giuliani is the best Republican to defeat Hillary Clinton?" Then almost all of the hands went up!

Could the bias have been any more transparent?

DrNoZone
10-22-2007, 07:53 PM
True, as a teaching assistant for business statistics, it is ludicrous to just be casting off polls. When done correctly, they are extremely accurate. However, one should always make sure that the methods of the polls are accurate since they can easily be manipulated.

Accurate for whom, is the question. Accurate for those running the poll?

AlexAmore
10-22-2007, 08:09 PM
But credible polling agencies take many measures to safeguard against these sources of bias and inaccuracy, and document their polling method, the sample size, the confidence interval, as well as their margin of error for anyone to inspect.


Find me a mainstream "scientific" poll regarding the Republican presidential candidates...ya know the ones with Ron Paul at 2-5ish%. Then show me where they document the exact questions given while polling America.

Also don't these polls generally ask Republicans who are likely to vote? Isn't that kind of narrowing the field when Ron Paul is in fact more libertarian and independent and gets people from all sides of the political spectrum?

Liberty
10-22-2007, 09:28 PM
Frank Luntz mentioned in middle of this article.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/AIPAC_Story.html

Jerome
10-22-2007, 10:24 PM
Polling is a statistical science. While I'm pleased you are taking a rational, skeptical approach, I have to say that after watching the video you linked, I am very disappointed in Penn's presentation of the issues at hand here. Remember, Penn is first and foremost an entertainer, and while he likes to think that he talks the talk, I assure you, Penn is no scientist, and certainly no academic.

All of the issues discussed are well known and are covered extensively in the literature. Yes, polling can be and is used to manipulate and obscure issues, and it is important that you be aware of this in order to be a discerning consumer of information.

But credible polling agencies take many measures to safeguard against these sources of bias and inaccuracy, and document their polling method, the sample size, the confidence interval, as well as their margin of error for anyone to inspect.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Take the time to inform yourself. Campaigns and credible publications don't pay polling agencies to make up numbers; if they wanted to make up numbers they could do it themselves. No, they pay polling agencies because they produce results that work and are proven on the free market.

We ignore reality at our own peril. Try as we might, we can't win the nomination on fond wishes and pixie dust.

Polling can be accurate when it's done scientifically and without bias. Frank Luntz, who is a pollster for major media outlets is admitting the ease and frequency he manipulates his polls. That's the danger here, and that's what happening.