|
Editor, The North Country Gazette:
I read the article published Sunday, Dec. 18 in the St. Petersburg Times, entitled "Faith and Consequences: What Terri's Law cost the Republicans in Congress", written by Wes Allison and Anita Kumar.
First, Anita Kumar has written pro-Michael Schiavo articles, and the St. Pete Times is a notoriously biased newspaper. That's for openers, so whatever article they write, look for them to find a kind word to say about Michael Schiavo or a nasty one on anyone who opposed Michael Schiavo.
Next, at the bottom of the article, no fewer than 12 polls are illustrated in summary pie-chart form, all showing that an overwhelming number of people are pro-Michael Schiavo.
I smelled a rat.
The first thing I do when I see a poll with results that look flaky is to examine the people that conducted the poll and read how the question is phrased. Although Pew Research and the Gallup Corporation are both fine polling organizations, the actual questions were created by Princeton University (Fred Singer's stomping grounds), also CNN\USA Today, CBS, ABC, and something called Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas Public Affairs. Princeton, CBS, ABC, USA Today are notoriously friendly to pro-death organizations.
Note the timing and the coordination; does it not seem the least bit funny that suddenly four media organizations are running the same poll, asked in the same manner, at the same time? Eleven of the 12 polls were conducted within one week and while Terri Schiavo lay dying. Only the Pew research poll of Princeton U was conducted in July of this year. Again, I don't trust anyone to write up an objective poll about life matters that would have Fred Singer as a lifetime tenured professor. Well, to me, that's too much like trusting the jail that housed Jeffrey Dahmer to write my cookbook.
Since a major polling organization charges approximately $9,000 for each polling question, someone put out some serious coin to get these polling numbers. This just shows that pro-death is ready to put their money where there mouth is to peddle their case.
Now, I don't know what all of you think of Dick Morris, but rumor has it that he does know a thing or two about polling tactics. On a completely unrelated issue, he recently appeared on the Bill O'Reilly show and talked about how organizations lie with polls. The tactic involves asking a question in such a way that you first explain the issue you want the people to vote for and then add a quick "or not" at the end of the question, with no explanation, for the position that you do not favor.
There are two blatant examples of this tactic in the Time poll. Then the question comes around to the way many of the other questions were asked. The question is asked whether Congress should intervene in the Terri Schiavo matter. A majority responded that Congress should not have, but if the question were asked if Congress was overstepping their bounds by passing a law, based on the 14th Amendment that gave the parents of a disabled woman the same rights of habeas corpus that convicted felons get. What might happen if one of these "government intervention" questions was followed with, do you agree that the judicial branch is every bit as much "the government" as the legislative branch or not? Or how about this question: When bonehead pollmakers ask questions about "allowing" a woman to starve or dehydrate, do these boneheads realize that the judicial order, starving the woman, is "government interference" or do they think it is merely "an act of God"?
The "snowball" effect of asking a question about "Government interfering in a personal manner" is used in 10 of the 12 polls.
In April of this year, (after 11 of these so-called polls showing their overwhelming evidence that Americans couldn't wait to waste Terri Schiavo and loathed anyone or anything that got in the way), Zogby released a poll showing that 79% of Americans think it's wrong to starve and dehydrate a brain damaged woman to death. I mean, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me that it can be true that most people think it's wrong to starve and dehydrate someone to death but at the same time, are overwhelmingly against anyone doing something to stop it.
Eric Paulos
Los Angeles, CA
© 2005 North
Country Gazette
|
