Scarborough said Arab-American pollster Zogby "may be biased" on Iraq war and "the Middle East situation"
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Joe Scarborough claimed that John Zogby, president and CEO of the polling firm Zogby International and an Arab-American, "may be biased" on the issue of the Iraq war and "the Middle East situation."
On the March 22 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough claimed that John Zogby, president and CEO of the polling firm Zogby International and an Arab-American, "may be biased" on the issue of the Iraq war and "the Middle East situation."
In a discussion of the media's portrayal of the war, Scarborough referenced a February 28 New York Times column by Nicholas D. Kristof that covered a poll conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College. The poll asked 944 U.S. troops serving in Iraq, "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?" Twenty-three percent of respondents said the troops should stay in Iraq "as long as they are needed," and 72 percent answered that the United States should exit the country within the next year.
From the March 22 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
SCARBOROUGH: [L]ast week Nick Kristof [a New York Times columnist] also wrote about this Zogby poll. I think it's important to talk about that Zogby has -- I think Zogby himself may be biased on this issue regarding this war, regarding Middle East -- the Middle East situation.
Flush use to rave about what a great pollster Zogby is...
If Scarborough can't trust ole Flush who can he trust?
Did Scarborough mention the percentage of US service personnel who believe we in Iraq because Saddam was behind 9/11? From memory (never reliable) I recall the figure was over 80%.
WOW!
I also remember when Rush used to rave about Zogby, at least when his poll results conformed to the prevailing GOP mythology.
Let’s get this straight,
MSNBC hires Joe to do political commentary. The assumption is that political commentary will have some relationship to reality (I want to get information from someone with the experience and time to analyze the political facts for me). Joe ignores the substance of the poll, despite the fact that such polls are based on fairly objective criteria of accuracy (for example, matching poll numbers with subsequent general elections) and questions the nationality of the person who owns the polling company.
This is political commentary?
Why would MSNBC keep Joe on the air if, by making such statements, he clearly demonstrates his own incompetence? If all they want is for Joe to be controversial and not “reality based” then they can just have him dress up in tights and offer to wrestle his guests rather than ask them questions. At least with this new format Joe won’t be talking too much.
...because you are exactly right. Scarborough gets tiny, tiny numbers of viewers, and he's totally medacious, but MSNBC keeps him on.
When Phil Donahue was on, he had their highest ratings. But MSNBC was "nervous" about his correct assumptions about Bush and the war, so they canned him.
If I ran a business like those suits run MSNBC, I'd be bankrupt by now.
Does that mean my opinion isn't what I think it is?
Is this more of that Dick Cheney "perception" crap, where somebody's trying to tell you that whatever it is you think about Iraq, you're more in the minority than you might think...
There's little or nothing to the polls; if you 'disapprove', there's only just you and a few more of you, so you better get over it...
There's nothing to those poll results, American People...
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Just change the words Zogby and Scarborough, and the inference from middle eastern descent to an inference of WASP descent and you may have it right.
Ugly Politics 101: If you don't like the message, discredit the messenger. That is Scarborough's tactic in this case.
"In a discussion of the media's portrayal of the war, Scarborough referenced a February 28 New York Times column by Nicholas D. Kristof that covered a poll conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College."...by MMFA
=====
Well not to get picky here, BUT since MMFA often points out that *portions of information* are sometimes absent when certain Conservative pundits, journalists or lawmakers are quoting others I think it's only FAIR that it be pointed out that a Poll conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College WAS more SPECIFICALLY= Zogby International and LeMoyne College Center for Peace and Global Studies.
Since so many here thought the word "PEACE" was what got Rush Limbaugh so fired up AGAINST this Poll I thought I should at least mention it. Just to be fair, of course.
As far as Scarborough assertion that John Zogby might POSSIBLY be biased on the issue of the Iraq war and the Middle East situation because he is Arab-American, I would only ask Joe Scarborough the following:
Does he believe that American citizens whether they be pollsters, journalists, lawmakers, voters, etc ALWAYS have a bias towards their OWN "ethnicity or race" or an allegiance to whatever country their ancestors came from--therefore can't be fair or impartial? Would I for instance be accused of having an "allegiance" or "bias" towards Italy or Italian policy simply because I'm an Italian-American?
Would Scarborough have thought ALL German-Americans were automatically Nazi sympathizers during WWII? (yeah he probably would have)
IF I were John Zogby I'd be DEMANDING an apology from Joe.
So if you believe Zogby is credible then you would also find the following results from Zogby credible:
Just 17% believe that only pro-choice judges should be appointed to the supreme court
Only 26% favor a filibuster of supreme court nominees.
Just 29% believe that abortion does not end a human life.
A mere 19% believe that life only begins at birth rather than conception.
Associated Television News President Brad O'Leary, who commissioned the poll, added that much of the results may "spell disaster for Democrats who try to run on the abortion issue."
Is Zogby a reliable pollster...or is Zogby only credible when you agree with his results?
You have learned well at the feet of the neo-con masters, oh grasshopper.
For the misleading conclusion is the greatest ally of those who would feign "logic" when interpreting poll results.
Notice how, below, you never post the response to the question:
"Should abortion be illegal in the USA, after having been legal for the past several decades?"
or
"SHould women who seek abortions be thrown in jail?"
You equate a belief that litmus tests should not be conducted on judges with a belief in making abortion illegal. Same with filibusters. You rival Master Hannity in your abilities to execute argument ju-jitsu.
You also conflate the issues of when "life" begins and whether abortion should be legal. Master Limbaugh would be proud.
Another excellent move is to quote Brad O'Leary wihout mentioning his role as a Bush Pioneer:
[link to client.xntec.com]
However, young Wesley, you truly show your powers with this quote:
"Is Zogby a reliable pollster...or is Zogby only credible when you agree with his results?"
You make it seem as if MMFA or any of the above posters were commenting on Zogby's reliability! Outstanding, young master! You have acheived a level of meretriciousness found only in those who bear the name "O'Reilly"!
Your long hours of training in front of Fox News and Instapundit have served you well, my son. You are now ready to defend illegal wiretapping by saying Americans favor listening in on terrorists.
Close Italics
Sorry.
Thanks for proving my point. Polls are all about cherry picking the results that you like and discarding the others. I didn't equate anything...just a report on some Zogby poll numbers.
You have jumped predictably to citing endless different questions that could have been posed...just casting about until you get the result that you want.On the question of Zogby's crediblity...the heart of this thread is whether Zogby is an unreliable source or is Scarborough full of crap. Your wandering reply was amusing and substantiated my position that polls are about producing expected results rather than seeking information...except for that important poll looming in November.
I don't need pollsters to validate my beliefs...so I'm not waiting on that poll about wiretaps...I'll tell you now...I fully support the current program of wiretaps on anyone, American or foreign, who is suspected of ties to terrorism...and no, I'm not concerned about forfeiting my constituitional rights and freedoms.
Ellington pointed out that the opinions cited dont necessarily make the point you seem to be trying to make. IF there is a problem with the methodology or make up of a question that is a reasonable critique of a poll. Zogby does good polls. Polls measure ONLY opinions and only a limited opinion at that a snapshot. WHEN someone is trying to talk about what the opinions of the troops or of Americans are though Polls are all that exist to give FACTUAL backup to those claims. Zogby is a good pollster, he always has been and I take his polls seriously even when they show (as often is true) my opinion is in the minority. Many rightwingers here want to express what the opinions of the majority of Americans is then disparage the polls that show they are wrong, this is what Scarbourough is doing.
I asked about Zogby's credibility and you responded without meaningless political ramblings.
Too many people today...which includes almost all of the media and many politically active Americans...selectively cite poll numbers to affirm their agendas. That's the old " have you stopped beating your wife" trickery.
Valuable information can be obtained if the poll is analyzed in a complete and indiscriminate manner...not just searching for the one result that produces a headline or supports your political leaning.
I agree with your comment that polls are just a snapshot of emotion at that particular moment in time. Respondents tend to react emotionally rather than thoughtfully when answering a long string of questions as the pollster pushes for quick responses in order to complete the survey.
An example would be a recent Harris poll on the NSA wiretaps. Many were quick to recite the results...however when reading the complete survey their was a very interesting question that was not reported. Of the respondents, half said they new little or nothing at all about the subject. That would invalidate the results of most of the poll, in my opinion.
The popularity of polls arose when career politicians sought to find the hot buttons of voters in order to gain or hold on to political power...not as a real source of information.
Polling reports...useful...as long as they are used in a rational manner and not for pandering rhetoric...after all...have you ever changed your mind because of polling data? I haven't and I'll bet you haven't either.
I asked about Zogby's credibility and you responded without meaningless political ramblings.
That's a complete mischaracterization of Solon's post. Read it again.
Say what?
"Of the respondents, half said they new little or nothing at all about the subject. That would invalidate the results of most of the poll, in my opinion."
Why would the ignorance of the respondents invalidate the results of the poll? Validity is a statistical concept that speaks to whether the poll is measuring what it purports to measure. I assume the poll you are speaking about was measuring public opinion, not public knowledge. The fact that, in this case, public opinion was uninformed was a good piece of information, but is a separate issue from the validity of the poll. You aren't going to get very far trying to assess poll results if you don't understand the underlying statistical concepts.
You're correct...the poll was examining the opinion of the respondents. The only good info was that half the people had no knowledge of the subject which might mean they had no interest.
For the media or anyone else to attach anything more significant than that fact as a result of the poll would be fakery. Uninformed opinions can rapidly change when they become informed. That would make half of the poll numbers at risk to move either way and significantly change the results.
It would be dangerous to put much faith in this poll until the respondents demonstrated a grasp of the subject...or if they don't...it means half the people don't know or don't care...that's the only valid info.
The question is not the validity of the poll but the validity of using the numbers to try to gain some political advantage with sound bites or headlines....but thanks for your lightweight analysis.
I made a respectfully worded, well reasoned point and you responded with a personal attack that doesn't address my point. I guess that says all I need to know about you.
...and no, I'm not concerned about forfeiting my constituitional rights and freedoms.
Ok...consider them forfeited. Authorities will be there shortly to seize your home, if you have one, for a private development. You will then be thrown in jail and possibly executed for treason. Don't bother arguing you're not guilty of treason; you won't have the benefit of defending yourself in a trial.
Because you're too blinded by partisian politics to realize a rattlesnake when you see it. Instead, you see a cute little kitten that just wants to play. Until, of course, it BITES you in the ass.
"Nice kitty.... OUCH!! BAD KITTY!! I never liked that cat anyway...."
Well done, Ellington! Humorous and effective. And despite Wesley's smug claim to the contrary, you administered a fine trouncing.
My favorite one of his rabbit-trails was the "A mere 19% believe that life only begins at birth rather than conception." My goodness, I know many people who consider themselves pro-choice, and I've never heard one of them utter anything this inane. Of course they know an unborn baby is alive. Frankly, I'm amazed that the number is that high. And since no Democrat would ever make such a claim, how it could "spell disaster" is beyond me.
In any event, back to the main point: Scarborough's claim ("I think Zogby himself may be biased on this issue regarding this war, regarding the Middle East situation.") is utter nonsense. He's an Arab-American; fine. Is he Egyptian? Saudi? Iranian? Kuwaiti? Lebanese? Jordanian? Is he Iraqi, by any chance? If so, is he Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, or something else? Just lumping them all together and expecting them to have an "Arab" viewpoint is shallow and sloppy thinking, the type that should never be practiced by a legitimate journalist.
Certainly not that Scarborough qualifies.
- "A mere 19% believe that life only begins at birth rather than conception." My goodness, I know many people who consider themselves pro-choice, and I've never heard one of them utter anything this inane. - political_left-religious_right
Well, there you have it...a vote against the credibilty of Zogby.
It has been a longstanding criticism that Zogby is slanting polls towards his customers.
The poll was paid for by an anti-war person or group from the Middle East (Zogby won't say who, probably Soros connected). The poll was initiated by a "peace studies" college which equal anti-war sentiment. The poll cannot be reproduced due to the fact Zogby claims for security reasons he cannot tell you where the troops were that he got the polls for. We know little to nothing about the Lebananese polling company that did the survey. As far as Zogby's heritage, he has been criticized as favoring the left (see his apology for miscalling the last election) and also as anti-war. I do not know anything about his ties to Soros groups, if Scarborough wants to make allegations he should back them up. The poll, however, is an obvious sham.
- And since no Democrat would ever make such a claim - political_left-religious_right
That gives you a seat next to Alice in Wonderland. Want proof...hop over to dailykos and read the multitude of rabid democrats stating that life "does not begin until birth".
As to Daily Kos: been there, haven't seen anyone make that claim. Kindly give a link.
Unfortunately, I omitted a phrase in what I'd written. It should have read: "And since no Democrat running for public office would ever make such a claim...".
And you know that's perfectly true.
Yes, all the dark people that don't agree with ME and my Preznit are BIASED. Arrest them!
Growing up in South Africa, we NON-Whites used to marvel at the level of intelligence of most of the Government employees. We finally decided that to be a "baas" in the govt. you had to be white and have an IQ that is almost equivelent to the age of one's youngest child! Well I have finally seen the light. MSNBC uses the same metric when it hired Scarborough, Tweety, Carlson and the Rita! I always believed that Fox could have no equal. Wrong again. MSNBC takes it all.
It is immaterial thatlife stars at conception. Personhood does not begin until there is consciousness and pain can be felt Personhood is what counts!One cannot equate a blob of cells with slaves as prenancy enforcers are wont to do.Their posters of fetuses to scare women,thus,is fatuous.Dr.Carl Sagan , Witch Dr.Wilkie makes sense here.
carl sagan, not wilkie
enjoy you update on reporters on other channels who are one sided ona varityof issues .after reading your updates it is an eye opner and makes you stop and pay attention to what you are watching and listen to on news