Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Tell the Truth campaign logo
NewsBusters.org logo

February 09, 2012
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • RSS
Home » Blogs » Warner Todd Huston's blog
  • Chris Matthews Reacts to JFK Mistress: Kennedy a Hero Who 'Still Arouses the Country'
  • Covering Up JFK’s Roguish Behavior for 50 Years Not Long Enough for NBC’s Viewers
  • Bozell: It's 'Hilarious' CNN Suspended Roland Martin for Inoffensive Tweet; Maybe 'Lefty Loons at MSNBC' Can 'Scoop Him Up' Now
  • CNN Responds to Bozell Letter Demanding Coverage of Catholic Outrage at Obama; We Reply
  • Barbara Walters: It's 'Heartbreaking' to Force Women to View an Ultrasound Before an Abortion
  • MRC Study: ABC and NBC Anything But Fast and Furious On Gunwalking Scandal
  • Bozell Column: The Secular Media vs. Religious Liberty
  • Even Chris Matthews Questions Obama's 'Frightening,' Birth Control Decision

Were CNN Poll Questions Weighted Against Surge Report?

By Warner Todd Huston | August 17, 2007 | 03:54

Change font size:  A |  A

CNN released a poll on the 16th that claims that 53% of Americans don't trust the U.S. Military assessment of what is going on in Iraq and that 72% won't have their mind changed on their view of the war no matter what General Petraeus says about the surge next month. But if one reviews the questions of the poll and the method by which it was conducted is considered (at least the only hint of that method that was released), it makes one suspicious that it was anywhere near a fair and balanced scheme. In fact, there are so many questions about how this poll was carried out that the results must be viewed with skepticism.

To start with, of course, the poll is conducted by Hillary Clinton supporter Vin Gupta's Opinion Research Corporation, the organization CNN has hired to run their political polling -- a convenient situation for the Clinton campaign, to be sure. This single fact alone is enough to inform that the poll could likely be weighted to skew toward the ideas that Hillary Clinton is propagating in her campaign.

According to the front page of the partial downloadable PDF file of the poll, it was compiled from "interviews with 1,029 adult Americans" by telephone between August 6th thru the 8th with a plus or minus 3 percentage points.

There is no indication what party the respondents claimed to be members of, there is no mention if they were voters, registered, or likely. No geographic region is identified, no age bracket and no gender info for the poll is offered. This also causes skepticism. After all, they could have asked all Democrats, or weighted the Democrats to be a higher percentage. Maybe more women than men were asked? Maybe all the respondents were in the environs of Washington D.C., or maybe they were all women in Austin, Texas!? We have no idea as no facts of the sample size are revealed.

Only half of sample asked certain questions?

Then we get to the odd choice of asking only half those interviewed some of the questions from the poll. What was the deal with this? At least questions 28 through 33 were only presented to half those interviewed. One of those questions pertained to how respondents viewed the report general Petraeus would be giving next month.

33. As you may know, in September the top U.S. commander in Iraq will report to the President and Congress about how the war is going. Do you trust him to report what's really going on in Iraq without making the situation sound better than it actually is, or don't you feel that way? (ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE)
The half of the 1,029 interviewed that were asked this question ended up giving the following results:
  • Trust him to report what’s really going on 43%
  • Do not trust him to report what’s really going on 53%
  • No opinion 4%

But which half were asked this question? Was the question asked of women and not men? Was the question asked of Democrats and not Republicans? How do we know how this question was weighted so that we might assess the legitimacy of the results?

Further, if many of the questions were only asked of half the respondents, doesn't that mean that the poll was not conducted among 1,029 adult Americans, but was really only conducted among some 514 adults, roughly half the claimed sample size?

As Duane Patterson of radioblogger says, "It's hard to take a poll seriously when on the one hand, 50% can support the war or say they're open minded to change their mind, and then in the next breath say 72% wouldn't change their mind on Iraq regardles of what General Petraeus might say, because most people don't trust him anyway."

And who could disagree with that?

All in all, what we have here is another questionable CNN poll by Clintonista, Gupta, that is possibly weighted toward the antiwar side and one that should be viewed with a healthy skepticism... not that any of CNN's viewers and readers would be aware of the problems here. Share this

  • Foreign Policy
  • Iraq
  • Media Bias Debate
  • War on Terrorism
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Vin Gupta
  • CNN
  • Journalistic Issues
  • Warner Todd Huston's blog
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Donate to NewsBusters

Donate to NewsBusters Today!

This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead

User Shortcuts

Log in

  • My account
  • My buddylist
  • Log in to check messages
  • RSS feed
  • About NB
  • Contact us
  • Jobs
  • Advertise on NB

 

 

  • Where are the blacks for Roland Martin? (NRO/Media Blog)
  • Turkish Islamists turn church into mosque (Commentary)
  • CNN suspends Roland Martin (Big Journalism)
  • Birth control mandate is unconstitutional (National Center)
  • Obama's Catholic 'problem' (S.E. Cupp)
  • Debt crisis not inevitable for America (Williams)
  • Catholic 'Obamacan' says he may have to reconsider in 2012 (CNA)

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Recent comments

  • You guys are both right, but
    1 min 52 sec ago
  • Dave the baptists announced
    6 min 44 sec ago
  • good neighbors
    18 min 43 sec ago
  • So everyone knows
    20 min 36 sec ago
  • when Teddy was a young boy!
    23 min 57 sec ago
More >

Obama's Bully-the-Catholic-Church Pulpit
more cartoons
  • Dan Savage Says FRC Leader 'Dances a Jig' at Teen Suicides
  • Cornel West Scolds Al Sharpton: 'Tell the Truth About the White House'
  • Politico: Is Nancy Pelosi A 2012 Asset, or Not?
  • CNN Demeans Republicans as Drag Queens
  • Democrat: Fox News Is 'The Enemy,' Hates 'Working Men and Women'
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Lachlan Markay
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Editorial Associate
Aubrey Vaughan

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2012 NewsBusters. Terms of Use.