NY Post exaggerated results of ambiguously worded poll question about Obama and Blagojevich scandal
SUMMARY: The New York Post falsely reported that a Rasmussen poll found that "[n]early one in two Americans thinks it likely" that President-elect Barack Obama or members of his staff were "in on" the scandal involving Gov. Rod Blagojevich and that 23 percent of respondents in the poll "[s]ay it's 'very likely' an Obama aide will be implicated." In fact, the poll found that 23 percent of respondents found it "[v]ery likely" and 22 percent of respondents found it "[s]omewhat likely" that "Obama or one of his top campaign aides was involved in the Blagojevich scandal" [emphasis added]. The Rasmussen question itself is ambiguous as to whether "involvement" is limited to instances of wrongdoing by Obama or his staff, of which there is no evidence.
In a December 16 article, the New York Post falsely reported that a December 11-12 Rasmussen poll found that "[n]early one in two Americans thinks it likely" that President-elect Barack Obama or members of his staff were "in on" the scandal involving Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), and further falsely reported that 23 percent of respondents in the poll "[s]ay it's 'very likely' an Obama aide will be implicated" in connection with the scandal. In fact, in response to the same question -- not two separate questions, as the Post report suggested -- the Rasmussen poll found that 23 percent of respondents found it "[v]ery likely" and 22 percent of respondents found it "[s]omewhat likely" that "Obama or one of his top campaign aides was involved in the Blagojevich scandal" [emphasis added]. Rasmussen did not ask in that or any other question how likely respondents thought it was that Obama or one of his staff was "in on" or "implicated in" the scandal. Moreover, the Rasmussen question of whether Obama or his staff were "involved" in the scandal is itself ambiguous; as Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld noted, "[F]or respondents, 'involved' could mean anything from having had perfectly routine discussions about [Obama's Senate] seat to something genuinely pernicious." As Media Matters for America has noted, both U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and the criminal complaint against Blagojevich have made clear that there are no allegations or evidence of misconduct by Obama or his staff in connection with the case.
The Rasmussen poll asked the following question:
3* How likely is it that President-elect Obama or one of his top campaign aides was involved in the Blagojevich scandal?
23% Very likely
22% Somewhat likely
35% Not very likely
11% Not at all likely
10% Not sure
In purporting to report the Rasmussen poll's results, the Post wrote:
Nearly one in two Americans thinks it likely Barack Obama or someone on his team was in on Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's alleged corruption scandal, according to a Rasmussen Reports survey released yesterday.
Blagojevich was arrested last week and charged with, among other things, seeking to appoint the successor to Obama's Senate seat in exchange for $1 million.
45%
Believe Obama, or staffer, involved
23%
Say it's "very likely" an Obama aide will be implicated
In addition to falsely asserting that Rasmussen polled whether respondents believe Obama or his staff were "in on" or "will be implicated" in the Blagojevich scandal, by recounting the 45 percent and 23 percent figures separately, the Post also falsely suggested that the two results came from separate Rasmussen poll questions. In fact, the 45 percent figure represents the number of respondents who said it is either "[v]ery likely" (23 percent) or "[s]omewhat likely" (22 percent) that "Obama or one of his top campaign aides" was "involved" in the scandal.
In addition to Sargent and Kleefeld, Washington Monthly blogger Steve Benen also noted that the Rasmussen poll question is "more than a little ambiguous":
The exact wording of the question was: "How likely is it that President-elect Obama or one of his top campaign aides was involved in the Blagojevich scandal?"
The problem, of course, is that "involved" is more than a little ambiguous. For that matter, asking about "Obama or one of his top campaign aides" opens the door awfully wide.
Indeed, while I suspect some news outlets will pounce on the Rasmussen results as evidence of public doubts about Obama, the exact same pollster, on the exact same day, found that Obama's approval rating is still soaring, and one point shy of a post-election high.
In other words, looking at the Rasmussen numbers, Americans either a) believe the president-elect or his team were part of a major corruption scandal, but don't care; or b) think Obama or his aides were "involved," but not in a way that reflects badly on the president-elect or his team. My hunch is that it's the latter.
Rasmussen has used questions in the past that were ambiguous or that misrepresented the debate over a particular issue.
NY Post exaggerated results of ambiguously worded poll question about Obama and Blagojevich scandal
hmmm, I thought the NY Post always exaggerated. They are a joke. Of course any Murdoch owned "news" outlet is not serious.
Yeah Doris,
That piece of trash yesterday in the Times of London that Media Matters posted was one of the most amazing pieces of vindictive, crap journalism I have seen in a long time.
Rupert Murdoch is a very evil, arrogant man.
Good catch by MMFA as far as repeating the numbers, I see this done pretty often, portraying a separate group of respondents as included in another group.
On the other hand, I'd disagree with the confusion about "involved with the scandal". I think that's pretty clear, not too many would read that as "involved in a good way with the scandal".
These surveys always leave me wanting the answers to a follow-up question or two. For example, to those who answered that it's likely that Obama is involved in this scandal, is your feeling (since there's no evidence of involvement, it's only a feeling) based on;
A. Personal dislike of Obama
B. Speculation in the media
C. general distrust of politicians
D. The Chicago Way Frenzy
E. Your recent Hannitization.
F. All of the above
How about they also have say who Blagovich is?
The only thing I needed to know was that 23% is also the same percent of idiots who are right wing racist "christians".
To be honest, I don't find the wording to more than just a little ambiguous. If it were worded in a way that was slightly more damning to Obama and his staff, I doubt if the results would have been much different. The conclusions given were only a small stretch from the actual poll wording.
BillJ - You did not perform very well in math in school if you think you would get away with saying that 45% is nearly 1 in 2. That's just Murdoch math for an idealogue.
That doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. What is 45% normally described as?
I may be confused, but I think this part;
"45%
Believe Obama, or staffer, involved
23%
Say it's "very likely" an Obama aide will be implicated"
Appears to say that 68% of respondents either believe there is involvement, or it's "very likely" there's involvement.If I'm not mistaken, the 23% is a subgroup of the 45%.
23%? Isn't that the same ratio of the population that would vote for Bush again if they could? And 45%? About the same as McCain voters?
Yeah, these polls are worth their weight in GM stock...
pretty much my thinking. it's the same people who don't like obama to begin with. if you read anotheramerican's posts, they're just full of "he must have done something". exactly what is never explained.
I saw that in the article, but I didn't get that meaning here:"You did not perform very well in math in school if you think you would get away with saying that 45% is nearly 1 in 2. That's just Murdoch math for an idealogue."
Okay, sorry to go slightly off topic, but this "scandal" outlived its newsworthiness a week ago.
Is it an accident that it is the dominant story all day every day? What else are they NOT talking about?
Maybe Darth Cheney's admission that he authorized and approved the torture of prisoners?
Maybe President Numbnut's flippant "So what?" when it was pointed out to him that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we occupied it?
I agree completely! I noticed while reading the paper this morning (LA Times) that the Cheney story was on (I think) A17, or some other equally buried page. Not Page 1, continued on A17, like the latest Blago article, but COMPLETELY on A17. You have to not be running late to work to catch that article. Seems to be Obama's tenuous ties to an Illinois politician are not nearly the story of OUR CREEPY EVIL CURRENT VICE PRESIDENT AUTHORIZING AND ADVOCATING FOR TORTURE and being COMPLETELY UNAPOLOGETIC ABOUT IT. Scary stuff that ANYONE would think that wasn't a top story...
You wouldn't really expect a Murdoch rag to address an important story in a responsible manner, would you? That would take some diligent, honest reporting, the kind not to be found in Rupeworld. I say this from experience, having intimate, on-the-ground knowledge of a sensational story the Post covered (and botched, distorted, pick your term) when the Aussie first bought the venerable (founded by Alexander Hamilton, you know) tabloid.