Fox News poll poisons the well

April 21, 2006

Just to follow up for a moment on the [tag]Fox News[/tag] poll noted below, I wanted to add that the poll offered a couple of examples that highlight why FNC is not exactly a credible news outlet.

When asking about the president’s approval ratings, the [tag]poll[/tag] played it straight and asked respondents, simply, “Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?” There’s no wording to lead the respondent in one direction or the other.

But take a look at how Fox News asked people about immigration (.pdf).

“Do you think illegal immigrants from Mexico should be given special treatment and allowed to jump in front of immigrants from other countries that want to come to the United States legally, or not?”

The word that comes to mind is “[tag]loaded[/tag].” The question isn’t [tag]neutral[/tag]; it included key words that were intended to drive results in a specific direction. Not surprisingly, it worked: 90% of poll respondents said Mexican immigrants should not be “given special treatment” over law-abiding immigrants from other countries.

Questions about the economy also resembled push-poll phrasing. After respondents expressed pessimism about the strength of the economy, the Fox News poll eventually asked them:

“Considering that over the past twelve months the stock market is up, employment has increased and the disposable income of U.S. workers has increased, do you think the news media has generally done a good job or bad job providing accurate news about the nation’s economy?”

The point of a question like that is, obviously, to lead the poll respondent to criticize the news media on a typical Republican talking point: people are only frustrated with the state of the economy because the media tells them to be. Fox News wants to be able to go on the air and say, “Americans blame [tag]media[/tag] for misleading economic info.” (For what it’s worth, even with the poll’s wording, it was a limited success: 41% said the media has done a good job providing accurate news about the economy, while 38% said the opposite.)

Fox News is playing a silly game that real news outlets don’t bother with. What a shock.

Interesting! Do you suppose that FOX is using its “credibility” as a media outlet (Hahahahahahahaha…snort! Heh) to basically campaign for the Republicans via push-polling? That is sneaky. And a bad precedent, especially if the other corporate owned media decide its in their interest to do the same thing.

Moveon, eat your heart out!

  • I know! Let’s as Ann Coulter what she thinks of Fox’s credibility as a news channel! I’m ever so curious. Really!

  • Push polls push ethical boundaries when it’s actual campaigns using them; for a “news outlet” to use them is beyond egregious. Every other news agency in the country ought to be screaming bloody murder. Seriously, this is horrible.

  • I agree that the economic question is pretty loaded. But the first question, about whether some immigrants get to jump in front of a VERY long line, needs to be asked, and answered.

    I think it’s fair to ask if the American people want to let the legal immigration process be short-circuited by people who are unwilling to obey US laws. Millions of people from hundreds of other countries would love to come here, and it’s a good thing when we allow them to legally come in, but letting 11 million people jump that line violates basic fairness principles. It’s not fair to the MILLIONS of other people who don’t have the option of walking over an open border.

    Basically what we’re saying with this amnesty policy is that the law doesn’t matter, which by no coincidence is the same thing we tell our corporations.

  • RacerX,

    I think you’re missing the point. The “question” is really nothing more than an thinly veiled opinion. Essentially, FOX is asking those polls to validate their news coverage. There are better ways to ask the question or a series of questions and get a clearer picture of how Americans view immigration. I don’t doubt a number of people view the immigration debate the way you describe it. But you don’t offer someone an pre-formed opinion in poll. You’re trying to figure out what people really think, not whether they’ll agree with what you say.

  • RacerX,

    Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt the question addressing a complete and total strawman?

    Is there any proposal seriously under consideration that gives special privileges to Mexicans who have entered the country illegally over everyone else from every other country including legal immigrants?

    If there is such a proposal I’d like to see it (preferably with a link) so I can get a good laugh at whoever proposed it?

    Should they ask are you opposed to give special treatment for law violators from Mexico over lawabiding people from everywhere else just because they are from Mexico?

  • When it comes to illegal immigration, I am FAR more worried about the work, student and tourist visa holders who stay in this country beyond the length of their visa than I am about the border crossers. The 9/11 high jackers were amoung the first group, not the second.

    We have quotas by country of who can immigrate into America. If you are Irish, you can pretty much walk right in. We need to increase the quota for Mexico to have a rationale policy.

    We need universal ID tied to our right to work.

    We need to crack down on employers who hire or sub-contract to illegals.

    Which means I suppose we need to set license requirements for anybody trying to work as a sub-contractor.

    Don’t do these things, and we will never control our borders.

  • We need universal ID tied to our right to work.

    Such desired mechanisms of control are why I no longer consider myself a liberal. Too bad the conservatives are just as bad, for different reasons.

    Everyone seems to have forgotten what the word “freedom” means. “911 changed everything” seems to be a self-fullfilling cliche.

  • “Such desired mechanisms of control [universal id] are why I no longer consider myself a liberal.” – fishbane

    Well, okay! Let us give up on the idea of having a country which controls its borders.

    Frankly, the idea that in the 21st century Anonymity equals Freedom does not work for me. I like my privacy and want to extend the same to you, but privacy does not extend to the workplace as long as our tax base is income. An employer needs to know who is working for them, collect their income and FICA taxes, and along the way, can certainly be held to the requirement that they not employ illegal workers.

    But all of that requires a sound form of identification, which so many on the left and right seem to oppose.

    Secret ballots are an invention of this country. Many democracies have existed where you proudly declared your vote to the commons on election day. Yet it seems the more power we give to our government, the less we are willing to tell the government who we are.

  • “I like my privacy and want to extend the same to you, but privacy does not extend to the workplace as long as our tax base is income.”

    I would suggest that means our tax base shouldn’t be income, but what do I know…

  • Let us give up on the idea of having a country which controls its borders.

    Oh boy… someone points out there are Latinos in our midst and the entire country goes batshit.

    IF we were serious about “controlling our borders” we’d address our northern border, security at our international imports and begin checking every single vessel and shipping container that passes through our ports. But we’re not very serious about it at all. Really it’s just become another reason to bash brown-skinned people because the Republicans poll numbers look bleak. There aren’t enough Arabs in the U.S., so the “Mexicans” will have to do. I’m appalled anyone falls for this racist line of crap.

    And honestly do you expect the current crop of utter fuckups to administer a universal ID card in a way that isn’t intrusive and a major violation of our civil rights? Is there anything the Bush Administration or the Republican Congress hasn’t fucked up beyond all recognition? If they can’t handle Afghanistan, Iraq, Medicare, tax cuts, Katrina, etc., what makes you think they’ll save the country from the marauding brown hordes?

  • “international imports” should be “international airports.”

    Sorry. But it aggravates me to no end when a self-described “liberal” starts suggesting we should surrender even more rights because the dude who cuts the neighbor’s yard may or may not be here legally.

  • OT–Come to think of it, the elimination of borders might be the best thing for workers.

    For the present, globalization has been a godsend for 2/3rds of economic triad. Businesses can set up manufacturing and services where the labor is cheap. Customers can buy products from all over the world, including products made more cheaply elsewhere…

    …But because of borders, workers (including those in the US) cannot easily move to where the jobs are. They are trapped, and have to be thankful there is a local Wal-Mart where they can work. Borders, it seems, is something that is calculated to keep workers on the edge of misery.

    Anyway, just something to think about/discuss.

  • Do you really think it would have been that much different if they had said Do you think undocumented immigrants from Mexico should be given special treatment and allowed to jump in front of immigrants from other countries that want to come to the United States legally, or not? or Do you think illegal immigrants from any country should be given special treatment and allowed to jump in front of immigrants from other countries that want to come to the United States legally, or not?

  • Do you think it would have been much different if it had been Do you think illegal immigrants should be given large mansions and a lifetime supply of beer? Because that’s as relevant a question to the current debate as either of those.

    • Comments are closed.