Posted on 12/29/2018 5:37:21 PM PST by FightThoughtControl
Yesterday, Dahoser helpfully posted this outrageously deceptive article from The Hill. Thank you, Dahoser. The post received much attention from Freepers, who made many good comments. Since most people likely don't have the time to wade through all 131 comments, I will summarize here some particularly astute observations as well as add my own. I hope that it will be a helpful exercise in highlighting many of the ways the media attempts to deceive us, particularly with statistics.
We should be concerned not just to avoid being deceived ourselves but also to recognize the powerful influence articles like this have on the general public which is not as aware of the deliberate deception techniques. This particular article is a clear example of the media using the powerful mechanism of "social proof" to sway people who are uncertain about some topic. When we are more uncertain of an issue and/or more people seem to believe one way about that issue, we are more easily swayed to that point of view. Social proof is well-documented and taught in MBA programs across the country as a manipulation tool. It is likely why Donald Trump smartly emphasized his good polling during the Republican primaries. It is why the media turned it around on him during the general 2016 campaign. It is why The Hill has published this deceptive article.
So, here are some issues with the article. Statements in italics are reasonable questions we might ask ourselves in response to these issues. Aside from slipping "or censured" into their headline, one had to read the whole article to learn:
1. The poll was an online survey. Seriously?
2. The online survey occurred 24-26 December. How might Christmas affect who responds to a survey?
3. The survey consisted of 1,473 registered voters. Why not likely voters?
4. Harvard conducted the survey. What outcome might elitist Leftists want to achieve?
5. The survey was released exclusively to the Hill. So no one else can question it?
6. The survey details/methodology won't be posted until later this week. How many readers will just consume the headline and not search for those details a week later?
7. The article's very last sentence is "As a representative online sample, it does not report a probability confidence interval." The confidence interval exists. So, how wide is this interval that they won't report it? That is, statistically this survey is garbage.
With exasperation, all I can say is that these people are scum and fully deserve their label as enemy of the American people. That The Hill would publish an article like this means that the editors have no credibility, and any Hill article is suspect.
I refuse to believe this crapola. No way!
So for ACTUAL citizens they may be talking 10-15% then and the sample is NOT really representative.
This poll is the pole used in an exotic dance club
Bullsh!t (necessary repost)
were on earth do they hid these polls......I can never find them.
The Hill of Crap
Its “The Hill”.
The Hill. or as I call it - the Shill.
In other words “FAKE NEWS”.
My dog knows where the best pole is.
We have long ago established the procedure of looking first after the headline to peak our interest who is the publisher before wasting time reading the presentation. One of the publishers we usually shine on, and return to browsing the news is The Hill. We have found them entirely too similar to the current FOX News. Not worthy of our time.
“powerful influence articles like this have ”
If the Hill was powerful, we’d have President Clinton right now. This was not a necessary repost.
What is a presidential censure?
makes me think it’s a Black Congressional Caucus poll.
Only in their fevered dreams!
If Democrats wanted to form a “throw kittens into a wood chipper” commission.
Que poll showing a majority support it in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
"What's the proof that the Russians hacked the DNC? What is the physical evidence (that has not been destroyed)? Who are the witnesses (who have not been granted immunity)? What's the chain of custody (of a improper investigation)?
I know this is the minority opinion here, but I don't believe Trump will face impeachment. There is so much wrong with Mueller's investigation, namely everything from beginning to end, that the Democrats risk too much if they try."
If the Democrats go for impeachment, it will be impossible to hide how corrupt Mueller has been. The Democrats are still paying off Hillary Clinton for the money she loaned them to keep them solvent in 2016. There's Kimdotcom saying Seth Rich was the leaker and Donna Brazille saying the primary was rigged. There's the recent admission in U.S. Federal Court that the Steele Dossier was bought and paid for by the DNC through Perkins Coie.
The Democrats and their allies inthe DOJ and FBI have as much or more to lose than Trump if they get exposed, and they all know it.
If trump gets impeached in the house, I suspect every president from here on out will as well. DC is a joke.
From this indicator, I would expect a Resolution of Impeachment is being planned for introduction to the House within the next three months by one of the more expendable Democrat Congresswomen. Hopefully, it will get bottled up in a committee and never come to a vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.