About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Liasson gave misleading report on NPR poll results, suggesting independents favor congressional Republicans

October 12, 2007 7:50 pm ET
image

Please upgrade your flash player. The audio for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a MP3 version of the audio.

14 Comments

On the October 12 edition of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, while discussing a recent poll jointly conducted by both a Democratic and Republican polling firm for NPR, national political correspondent Mara Liasson attributed to the Republican pollster, Glen Bolger, the assertion that "[o]n the question of Congress, independents are siding with Republicans." However, in the comments following Liasson's attribution, Bolger made no such claim, nor does the poll itself support such a conclusion.

During her report, Liasson featured an audio clip of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg saying, "When we asked the question when you look at the way things are in Congress, by 48 to 35 percent -- by 13 points -- it leads them to want to vote Democratic for Congress. So, the more things play out in Washington, they find themselves leaning more and more to the Democrats." Liasson replied, "Not so fast, says Republican Glen Bolger. On the question of Congress, independents are siding with Republicans." Bolger was then heard, asserting: "We lost the 2006 election because of independent voters. When you look at independents, they don't buy the argument that the Democrats are making. On this message they agree that it's time for a change; it's time to vote against the incumbents regardless of party." In fact, Bolger and Greenberg were referring to different questions, neither of which supports the assertion that "[o]n the question of Congress, independents are siding with Republicans."

Greenberg was referring to the question: Does the "way things are going in Congress" make you "more likely to support ... the Democrats ... or ... the Republicans for Congress?" As he noted, by a margin of 13 percentage points, respondents favored Democrats. Further, when asked a similar question -- does "the way things are going in Washington" make you "more likely to support" the Democrats or the Republicans for Congress? -- 47 percent of respondents said that it made them more likely to support the Democrats versus 33 percent who favored Republicans. The poll data released by NPR did not detail Republicans', Democrats', and independents' individual responses to these questions.

Bolger, meanwhile, was apparently referring to the question below, which asked respondents to choose the statement that "comes closest to your own opinion":

It is time for a change in Washington, and it is time to vote against all incumbents regardless of party. Republicans have messed up the Iraq War and have too many scandals, but Democrats have done nothing to change Washington, and have only worked to help their special interest friends.

...or...

It is time for change in Washington. President Bush has left us bogged down in religious civil war, with the continued support of Republicans in Congress. They did nothing about health care, energy independence, deficits or immigration and have opposed every new effort on health care and lobbying reform. We need to support Democrats to bring change.

While, overall, respondents favored the second option by nine percentage points, 47 percent of independents agreed with the first statement, while 40 percent chose the second. However, by concurring with the first statement, these independents were not "siding with Republicans," as Liasson suggested. Indeed, the first statement is critical of both parties, as it says: "[I]t is time to vote against all incumbents regardless of party."

Further, an October 12 online article accompanying Liasson's on-air report asserted that the poll found that "[b]y big majorities, Republicans, Democrats and independents say they do not like the way the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing its job." In her on-air report, Liasson similarly asserted that "[b]ig majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents say they don't like the way the Congress, which is now controlled by Democrats, is doing its job." But the poll did not ask respondents whether they approved of the "Democratic-controlled Congress." Rather, it asked the general question: "[D]o you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. Congress is handling its job?" Moreover, contrary to her suggestion that respondents were focused on congressional Democrats -- who control Congress -- in expressing their disapproval, in fact, when asked to choose between the two parties based on the "way things are going in Congress," respondents chose Democrats by a 13-point margin, as Greenberg noted in Liasson's report.

From the October 12 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:

LIASSON: There's also a potential trouble for the Democrats in voters' judgment of the new Congress. Its overall approval rating is even worse than the president's: 69 percent disapprove, 25 percent approve -- and that's a bipartisan judgment. Big majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents say they don't like the way the Congress, which is now controlled by Democrats, is doing its job.

But, says Stan Greenberg, those strong feelings do not seem to be leading voters to turn to Republicans.

GREENBERG: When we asked the question when you look at the way things are in Congress, by 48 to 35 percent -- by 13 points -- it leads them to want to vote Democratic for Congress. So, the more things play out in Washington, they find themselves leaning more and more to the Democrats.

LIASSON: Not so fast, says Republican Glen Bolger. On the question of Congress, independents are siding with Republicans.

BOLGER: We lost the 2006 election because of independent voters. When you look at independents, they don't buy the argument that the Democrats are making. On this message, they agree that it's time for a change; it's time to vote against the incumbents regardless of party.

From NPR's October 12 online article:

But ironically, strongly negative views of the Democratic-controlled Congress don't seem to be helping the Republicans.

Likely voters are even more negative toward Congress than toward the president -- 69 percent disapprove and 25 percent approve of Congress.

The attitudes are not partisan. By big majorities, Republicans, Democrats and independents say they do not like the way the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing its job.

But Greenberg says that those strong feelings do not seem to be leading voters to turn to Republicans.

"The more things play out in Washington, they find themselves leaning more and more to the Democrats," he says.

Not so fast, says Bolger. On the question of Congress, independents are siding with Republicans, he says.

"We lost the 2006 election because of independent voters," he says. "When you look at independents, they don't buy the argument that the Democrats are making. On this message they agree that it's time for a change, it's time to vote against the incumbents regardless of party."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by foghornleghorn (October 12, 2007 7:59 pm ET)
         

      I actually hear her this morning.  What a bunch of crap she was spouting.

      The question that should be asked of those unhappy with the Democratic Congress:

      "Will that keep you from voting for a Democrat in the next election?"

      No matter how upset so-called "independent" voters may be with the Democrats, they surely realize that the Dem's are still the only hope for sane, ethical, and constitutional government.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (October 12, 2007 8:58 pm ET)
           

        Disclaimer: This is the view of a single independent voter with conservative leanings.

        Nope, I don't think the Ds will necessarily give us a more ethical Congress over the long haul.  Only new blood, inserted on a regular basis, from both parties will keep Congress ethical and honest.  The Rs paid heavily in 2006, and may in 2008, because of ethical problems, just as the Ds paid in 1994 (House banking, etc). We, unfortunately, fall into a pattern of voting for seniority because it will "best benefit us" as an ROI, rather than necessarily being good for the USA as a whole.  2008 is a great time to vote against incumbents from both parties that have been in office more the 12 years in the House and more than 18 years in the Senate.  It's time for them to go back home and live a life like the rest of us have to live.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by beinemac (October 12, 2007 9:41 pm ET)
             

          Oscar,

           This is the most open, level-headed statement from a "non-liberal" I have seen on this site in weeks. Thanks for helping us to raise the bar for honest discussion.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (October 14, 2007 9:08 am ET)
             

          In principle, I have never been a supporter of term limits...believing that the public has every right to send who they want to represent them in govt. matters.

          Yet, as a practical matter...I lean more and more towards favoring term limits. The current system has produced a playing field heavily slanted for the benefit of incumbents.

          Those incumbents, in general, are not invested in America...but for their own personal power and its associated personal benefits.

          At the federal level we have allowed our representatives to award themselves large pay raises and obscene benefit packages...like their health care, retirement and personal expense benefits...mostly done like cowards in the dark of night.

          Sadly, for me, I think it's time to seriously consider term limits...in the hope of returning  our govt. to the hands of citizen politics...and remove the stranglehold of career politicians.

          After all...we set term limits for our presidents and governors. 

          Your post was on the money. 

           

           

          Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (October 12, 2007 11:55 pm ET)
           

        Dems haven't given us sane, ethical government when they've had the chances, so why do you think they will now???

        Report Abuse
    • Author by spooky3 (October 12, 2007 10:04 pm ET)
         

      Good catch, MMFA. I heard LIE-ason's report as it happened and had two thoughts, both of which have now been confirmed by your additional investigation:

      1)  "That can't be right."

      2)  "It is a shame when one has to tune out *an NPR* reporter because she has been found so often to be misleading or worse by MMFA. Even though she may occasionally report accurately, she so often does not that she has destroyed her own credibility. Listeners of NPR deserve better than to have to wonder whether they can trust reporters."

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (October 13, 2007 2:48 am ET)
           

        Funny (not really) that Liasson is the most prominent face of NPR (from where I'm sitting) ,and NPR is one of the most often mentioned examples of the crazy lefty media.The scale has been shifted so far to the right it's ridiculous.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by spooky3 (October 14, 2007 1:33 pm ET)
             

          Ironic, isn't it? Actually, I'm glad to say when I think of NPR I am more likely to think of Nina Totenberg, Diane Rehm and (locally) Kojo Nnamdi, so Liasson hasn't fully ruined it for me yet. Maybe it's time to let her switch places with the Car Talk guys, who can be trusted.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by maxa60 (October 13, 2007 10:38 am ET)
         

      Mara Liasson and Juan Williams... The two reasons I no longer contribute to NPR. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by JennyG (October 13, 2007 5:54 pm ET)
         

      Democrats need to fight back against neagative poll numbers by pointing out that the gridlock is really in the senate where only 49 seats are Democrats, 2 are Independent, and 49 are Republican.  The fact is we only have a Democratic House of Representatives, and that's only half of our Congress. The Republican senators refuse to show bipartisanship, and are unwilling to comprimise, for the good of the country.  Republicans are the reason why this congress hasn't been able to work for us- the people.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by laughinglefty (October 13, 2007 6:38 pm ET)
         

      I heard this report as well and was disturbed by the manner in which Liasson spun the polling data. I also couldn't help but notice that every poll that I've heard concerning the popularity of Congress consistently fails to ask why the respondents are dissatisfied. It's as if the pollsters are intentionally leaving that question out so as to leave the results open to interpretation and spinning. I think I am safe in the conclusion that the main reason people are dissatisfied with Congress is because, as of yet, it has failed to hold the Bush regime to account in any significant way (that is after all, why the public handed back control to the Democrats) and are angered by Republican obstructionism.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by spooky3 (October 14, 2007 1:28 pm ET)
           

        LL, I have had exactly the same question and I think your conclusion is sound.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by LarryE (October 14, 2007 1:32 pm ET)
           

        Lefty -

        every poll ... fails to ask why the respondents are dissatisfied. ... I think I am safe in the conclusion

        I've noticed the same thing about those polls - and without that information, those polls really don't tell us anything.

        I do recall one poll which - while still not asking why people felt as they did - broke down the ratings by party. It revealed that while the opinion of Congress's work had declined some among independents since the start of the session, it had crashed among Democrats over the same time. I'd say that offers clear support for your conclusion.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by cann0nba11 (October 14, 2007 5:58 pm ET)
         

      WHAT?!?!? An opinionated and slanted story on NPR? NPR? Who woulda thought?

      FUn times.... happy times.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace