WSJ cites Field Poll survey, ignores leading question on offshore drilling
SUMMARY: In an article citing the newly released Field Poll, The Wall Street Journal reported that "43% of Californians support the idea of drilling for oil or natural gas along the state's coast, compared with 51% who oppose it," without noting that the poll question included the false suggestion that "drill[ing] more oil and gas wells in state tidelands" would in fact "deal with the rising cost of energy" in the near future.
In a July 17 article (subscription required) citing a newly released Field Poll survey, The Wall Street Journal reported that "43% of Californians support the idea of drilling for oil or natural gas along the state's coast, compared with 51% who oppose it." But the Journal did not point out that the poll question included the false suggestion that "drill[ing] more oil and gas wells in state tidelands" would in fact "deal with the rising cost of energy" in the near future. As Media Matters for America previously documented, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) considered in its Annual Energy Outlook 2007 report the likely effects of allowing the congressional and executive moratoriums on certain offshore drilling to expire in 2012 and stated that "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017."
From the July 17 Wall Street Journal article:
With gas prices rising, California residents are softening their long-held opposition to offshore drilling, a new opinion poll suggests.
The shift comes as Congress and the Bush administration are escalating a battle over whether to end a two-decade federal ban on drilling off the coasts of California, Florida and the Eastern seaboard.
A new Field Poll survey to be released Thursday shows that 43% of Californians support the idea of drilling for oil or natural gas along the state's coast, compared with 51% who oppose it. In the last Field Poll survey on the topic, in 2005, 39% supported such drilling, compared with 56% in opposition. The majority of Californians have opposed the drilling in the poll since 1984.
From the Field Poll, released July 17:
I am going to read some proposals that have been made that attempt to deal with the rising cost of energy. For each please tell me whether you agree or disagree. (ITEMS READ IN RANDOM ORDER, ASKING:) Do you agree or disagree? (SEE RELEASE FOR STATEMENT READ)
The poll also implies that offshore drilling is not being done much right now, either. So of course people will support it-- but that doesn't mean they want to give away the store, as the WSJ is concluding.
Blitzer on CNN tried to pull a similar thing yesterday-- quoting a poll that showed that 72 % of Americans support offshore drilling, and then construing these findings as meaning that they support opening up grand new areas.
P.S.
(SEE RELEASE FOR STATEMENT READ)
Where? it's not even on Field's formal analysis.
What was the specific poll question? The areas of concern, and the statements read to the takers? Field doesn't say.....the analysis lacks all the information-- it merely claims that a series of ideas was stated by the surveyor. But what?
Mmfa's claim of misinformation is based on lies. The key quote mmfa uses has two slightly skewed opinionated phrases added to change the meaning of the poll question to that of something that has different meaning than intended. Adding "would in fact" and "in the near future" make the questions sound like there was some evil intent behind the questioning as if to hide a promoted aspect of this procedure.
The poll statement reads this way: "Oil companies should be allowed to drill more oil and gas wells in state tidelands along the California seacoast."
Nowhere did I see a statement that said this would "in fact" deal with rising gas prices in "the near future" as mmfa suggests it does. Misinformation fighting misinformation? Or, lies to counter truth? Either way mmfa is on the losing end of this one. More proof the agenda, here, isn't to promote fairness in reporting, but rather promote one side over the other at any and all costs.
The pollsters made this statement:
I am going to read some proposals that have been made that attempt to deal with the rising cost of energy. For each please tell me whether you agree or disagree.
One of the questions that follows is:
Oil companies should be allowed to drill more oil and gas wells in state tidelands along the California seacoast.
And
Current government restrictions prohibiting the drilling of oil and gas wells on government parklands and forest reserves should be relaxed.
There is a clear implication that those actions would be likely to accomplish the leading objective. I think it could be fair to criticize MMFA for overstating the implication, but you went off the deep end stating that the case was based on lies.
"I think it could be fair to criticize MMFA for overstating the implication, but you went off the deep end stating that the case was based on lies."
Not totally off the deep end. Check 'related' words in a thesaurus for the verb 'lie'. One related word is exaggerate. Which is a synonym for 'overstate'. Maybe not directly connected but certainly usable in this instance.
So you're defending your position through word-parsing? Anyone who's used a thesaurus has discovered that some of the end choices frequently have a tenuous link to the target word.
Virtually anyone who accuses someone of lying is saying that they made a statement that was not true with the knowledge that it wasn't true. MMFA's statement can be defended as factual, even if weakly so. I do agree the case is kind of weak, but a they do make a case with some factual basis. Therefore, I think your accusation of a lie wasn't justified.
"Virtually anyone who accuses someone of lying is saying that they made a statement that was not true with the knowledge that it wasn't true."
Yes. And, isn't everyone who complains about Bush "lying" using the same criteria? I take it everyone "knows" what Bush knows allowing them to say he was lying?!?
I think MMFA was more concerned with this statement which was read before the question was asked:
The drilling proposal put forth to the sample pool would not have an impact on the current cost of energy. It may have an impact in 2030.
"I think MMFA was more concerned with this statement which was read before the question was asked: "I am going to read some proposals that have been made that attempt to deal with the rising cost of energy. For each please tell me whether you agree or disagree." "
Do you see "would in fact" or "in the near future" in either statement you reprinted for all of us? There is no factual or time line inplication noted in the poll question. To add that element, then write a complaint story about that particular element of the question is wrong. Word parsing or not, mmfa is wrong for this article and to deny it shows support for a media corporation that will lie (if needed) to promote a hateful agenda aimed at one section of the political arena with the agenda of forming public opinion against that section. Telling the truth does not need to be part of the process.
Did you look at the survey any? They asked questions concerning how high energy costs are affecting them now, not in 2030. They asked questions concerning what measures they were taking to reduce their energy costs now, not in 2030. Then they asked a question that would have no impact on them until 2030. The implication is that drilling would quell their concerns now, as opposed to 2030 so MMFA was right in pointing this out.
So your only response is to take the discussion off in a completely different direction? I guess that indicates you admit you were wrong on the original topic.
As for WPE Bush, I think it's clear that he had information available to him at the time that substantially contradicted major portions of the case he was presenting to the American people and Congress. There are also things he stated that were known at the time to be false.
"The poll statement reads this way: 'Oil companies should be allowed to drill more oil and gas wells in state tidelands along the California seacoast.'" - Philib
Philib, your agenda against MMFA is understood. But even, for sake of discussion, granting that MMFA is off base on this one is plastering over a greater and more profound point. As referenced by you, the poll statement itself is founded on an implicit lie...namely that there is any reason whatsoever to drill for California state tideland oil. Polling the public on such a specious question is granting the validity of conservative misinformation. Why is that true? Because there is *nothing* to drill for.
From this page, http://www.resources.ca.gov/ocean/html/chapt_5e.html proven California tidal oil and gas reserves are estimated at 291,291,000 barrels of oil. Is that a lot? Assume it's all sitting already drilled in a big tank in your back yard...divide that figure by the 20 million barrels of oil a day consumed in the U.S. and you see that California tidal reserves are sufficient to run the country for two weeks! Two freakin weeks. Even setting aside environmental concerns, even setting aside the micro impact on gas prices at the pump, there's not enough in the California tidelands to fuel the generation of hot air coming from the president and other assorted conservatives on this matter.
Clearly, not a one of them understands how to use the "internets", nor can any of them work the buttons on a simple calculator.
Next question. Why in heaven's name would you be backing up such a profoundly *stupid* group of people?
Any and all costs? In any such campaign cutting off opposing veiws is an elementary tactic. The MMfa version must somehow,illogically include allowing you, Wesley, and some others to publicly say they have no case. Besides allowing you to throw in a few gratuitus insults besides. Fiendish, diabolical, Karl would never allow this.
Bet your shocking expose is still here when this thread locks.
-- the false suggestion that "drill[ing] more oil and gas wells in state tidelands" would in fact "deal with the rising cost of energy" in the near future. -- mmfa
This is an outright fabrication by mmfa. They constantly harangue those dealing in opinion based statements...while themselves doing exactly that in this case...their statement is an opinion rather than a fact.
-- moratoriums...to expire in 2012...would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017." -- EIA
The assumption cited by mmfa relies on no new regulations by congress...the very issue before congress today. The EIA estimates that it would take 5 years to bring production on-line from new lease permits.
Well, here's an opinion for you...if the govt. would get the hell out of the way and let the oil companies aggressively pursue expanded production they could cut the 5 year time table in half...bringing new production on-line in the next 2-3 years.
Now about those EIA "predictions". Anyone who has dealt with their information knows that they are fairly reliable in gathering current and past statistics...but they have an abysmal record of predictions.
Here's one of their current gems...they predict oil prices to increase only nominally between the 2005 benchmark and 2030. In 2005 dollars they predict the price to increase from $56.76 to $59.12
Another little gem...the EIA predicts falling oil prices between now and 2015...whoo boy, that's a real beauty.
And how about this nugget from the EIA...OPEC will keep increasing production to match rising demand through 2030...at a rate that keeps oil prices in the $50-60 range.
That's just a few examples of why few people take EIA predictions seriously...unlike the energy experts at mmfa.
This is an outright fabrication by mmfa.
No, it's not.
The assumption cited by mmfa relies on no new regulations by congress...the very issue before congress today. The EIA estimates that it would take 5 years to bring production on-line from new lease permits.
That's the only thing they can go on because that's the policy in place right now. You wanted them to go on a time line that's up in the air?
And isn't 2012 to 2017 five years?
Well, here's an opinion for you...if the govt. would get the hell out of the way and let the oil companies aggressively pursue expanded production they could cut the 5 year time table in half...bringing new production on-line in the next 2-3 years.
Government is not the problem here; our addiction to oil is.
Now about those EIA "predictions". Anyone who has dealt with their information knows that they are fairly reliable in gathering current and past statistics...but they have an abysmal record of predictions.
The EIA has been highly politicized under the Bush administration and that's the reason we can't rely on any information from them.
Worries about fuel prices? Not hardly...more good news from the EIA...mmfa's tutor on predicting the future of energy prices.
The EIA predicts the price of gasoline to fall from the 2005 benchmark of $2.91/gal to...hang on to your hat...$2.17 in 2010...$2.02 in 2020...$2.15 in 2030.
No worries, mate...and particularly good news for the kangaroo rat and the Sierra Club...the rosy predictions from the EIA means they can aggressively pursue the goal of bottling up even more domestic energy production.
Well good for EIA giving The Sierra Club the green light that they needed to bring the oil Emporors to distruction. And of course the American dream with it.
How dare they think they have a right to legal recourse in Corporate America. How dare they want infoformation and input into something which affects their daily life and seek to change it.
Anybody with an opinion outside of that graciously bestoed upon us by Corporate America via Corporate Media should just shut up and meekly accept the shrinking largess benevolently sprinkled upon them by a Corporate God whose patience with us does have limits. I mean just just look at how well income distribution has leveled out in the last nearly eight glorious years.
Eight more years! Eight more years! Eight more years and maybe we can turn this country into the third world mess that will help push that two percent of the population into the demi godhood that their efforts deserve.
Amen?
More great news from the gurus at the EIA for those opposing domestic drilling...and the traveling public...jet fuel prices to plummet.
From the all-knowing swamis at the EIA peering into their magic 8 ball.
Jet fuel to fall from the 2005 benchmark of $1.77 gal...to $1.47 in 2010...$1.42 in 2020...$1.59 in 2020.
Now the airline industry can stop worrying about the single biggest expense item and get back to concentrating on improving crappy service...serving gourmet crackers...jettisoning those darn heavy movie projectors...and keeping track of those pesky bags...sweet fancy moses...happy days are almost here again.