Irony alert: Pew misleads about poll results
March 13, 2009 6:44 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
This is just goofy. Pew Research published the results of a poll it conducted asking Americans how they'd feel if their local newspaper went under. Pew's finding caused some buzz online because it seemed not many readers would care if they lost their daily.
At least that's the spin Pew put on it [emphasis added]:
As many newspapers struggle to stay economically viable, fewer than half of Americans (43%) say that losing their local newspaper would hurt civic life in their community "a lot." Even fewer (33%) say they would personally miss reading the local newspaper a lot if it were no longer available.
The key phrase is "a lot," because Pew also asked respondents if they'd miss their newspaper "some," as well as "not much" and "not at all." Clearly there were people who said they'd miss their newspaper, and people who said they would not. Then within each group there were two choices in terms of emphasis.
So why in its write-up did Pew only hype the number of people who said they'd miss their newspaper "a lot"? Pew suggested only 33 percent of Americans would miss their newspaper ("a lot") if it folded. But if you add in the people who said they'd miss it "some," that total number jumps up to 58 percent.
Same with the questions about civic life being hurt without a local newspaper. Add in the "some" category and that total balloons from 43 percent to 74 percent.
Seems to me the Pew conclusion could have just as easily, and just as accurately, read:
As many newspapers struggle to stay economically viable, a strong majority of Americans (74%) say that losing their local newspaper would hurt civic life in their community. And a majority (55%) say they would personally miss reading the local newspaper if it were no longer available.
UPDATE: This was the headline to the Pew study:
Stop the Presses? Many Americans Wouldn't Care a Lot if Local Papers Folded
That just doesn't make any sense. According to Pew's own numbers, 74 percent of Americans would care if their local newspaper folded. So why emphasize the minority?
Maybe Pew lives in Prescott Arizona. I am actively hoping our "local" paper (that is actually ran by a millionaire right-wing family in Yuma Arizona) folds. Here is the sort of garbage we are subjected to on a daily basis.
I previously lived in Wyoming, and even though my paper there was definitely right-wing, they were honest enough to run all letters to the editor. I haven't been able to get a letter published here in Prescott, and judging from the letters page, the only time they are willing to run a liberal letter is if it has some glaring error they can snidely correct.
As far as snide corrections, I only wish they take the red pen to editorials like the one linked above.
The editorial writer lies and claims that Obama promised to get rid of earmarks. If you read Media Matters you would know that.
The editorial writer lies and claims Social Security is going to run out of money in a "few" years. If you read Media Matters you would know that.
Notice how both these lies push the right-wing storyline?
And the last time I checked, corruption was defined as using your office to personally profit. The examples of "corruption" they tried to demagogue are not even corruption. How is Pelosi of McConnell padding their coffers here?
The way Dennis Hastert or Rick Renzi (our former House Rep. here in AZ CD 2) used earmarks were corrupt, but there is no evidence in this editorial for corruption. I should mention the Courier editors loved them some Renzi, and even supported him for re-election as the most damning corruption allegations were coming out.