I am really sick of CNN’s polls. CNN, you’re a NEWS network. Your job is to REPORT what’s going on, not to ask us what we THINK is going on.
“Do you think the Anthrax envelopes are being mailed from inside or outside the country?”
Who fucking CARES what I think? What, if enough people think it’s outside, we’re gonna do something different?
Believe me, I know of plenty places I can make my voice and opinion heard on any news subject. I don’t need my news outlet to be one of them. It’s bad enough that the media is pissing itself with glee over every new Anthrax case, reporting rumors and unconfirmed stories, and so forth, that they have to report opinions as well. I don’t care if 99% of America thinks bin Laden is behind the Anthrax thing, THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT A FACT OR NEWS. Actually having evidence he’s behind it would be news.
Let’s see what’s currently on your site, CNN:
“Is the threat of bioterrorism exaggerated?”
I don’t know, CNN, I really don’t. I think it is, but I’m not sure because I can’t find out what the threat really is, with all the media screaming and yelling about Anthrax and saying how horrible it is and yet racing to the scene as fast as they can whenever someone gets a little too zealous with an Equal packet. And before the guy with the Equal packet can explain it’s just sweetner, you’ve got a poll: “WILL THE ALLEGED ANTHRAX NEXT TO JOE BLOW’S COFFEE CUP KILL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OR ONLY THOUSANDS? VOTE NOW!”
In the days after September 11, they had a poll asking if you felt A. Anger, B. Shock, or C. Sorrow about the attacks. VOTE NOW! ALL OF THE ABOVE, you CNN nitwits! Do they really think anyone is sitting around saying “Gee, I wasn’t shocked in the least, and I’m not at all sad about the loss of life, but yeah, I’m pissed as hell! Put me down for A. Anger, baby!”
Now that Wildest Bill is banned, he probably has some time on his hands, and I wonder if CNN could put him to good use thinking up polls. It seems a shame that only we should see such gems as “Do old people act crazy just to fuck with our heads” VOTE NOW! when the entire internet-using world could ponder whether that is A. Yes always, B. No never, C. No, only your head, Wildest Bill. Because those polls would be just as informative as the ones they have now.
This morning I take a look at my MSN home page and under my newsweek headlines I see “Bin Laden to Blame for Anthrax”. I click it, thinking they found a link between the two, but it’s just the result of a poll. Apparently, now the majority opinion from a poll is considered truth.
Grrrrr, I forgot to put in the part that annoys me the most – the VOTE NOW part.
To me, VOTING implies some sort of if … then relationship, as in If you vote for this guy for President, then he might be Rresident, or if not, then you can complain about the other guy.
Or an even more crucial scenario. If you are too lazy to vote for pepperoni, then the anchovy faction might win, leading to an extremely disadvantaged pepperoni minority living under the cruel anchovy regime at the office party.
So what does voting for less anthrax get me? If there is more anthrax, is it because enough citizens didn’t have the pride and sense of civic duty to get over to CNN.com and vote for less anthrax?
Instead of saying VOTE NOW, they should say “Tap your hoof against the keyboard to make that oh-so-satisfying clicky clacky noise, and bleat contentedly NOW.”
I thought those polls were some cripto-bullshit method of figuring out which way to slant their reports. “10,000 votes about aerial spraying of antibiotics over the Eastern seabord and only 500 about possible civil rights erosions? Crank up them anthrax stories! No one’s interested in lawful search and seizure anymore!”
It also lets them preen about how ‘interactive’ CNN is.
But real polls are controlled to actually have some relationship to what most people think. I’m no fan of polling, but modern pollsters do a pretty good job of getting an idea of popular opinion with samples of 1000-5000 of people.(I just think they do the polls too often, especially around election time).
The CNN polls are utterly and irredeemably idiotic because they sample only those who see it and who bother to “vote”. The the poll is really only a poll of some combination of
-idiots who have no idea what a real poll is
-fruitcakes who feel compelled to take a stand on every issue
-websloths with absolutley nothing else to occupy their time.
When I want to know what these people think, I know where to go - the corner bar, because at least there I can get a drink.
I ran that poll, and I’ve got bad news. Only 22% voted for Kirsten Dunst. 56% voted for Dennis Franz. You’re plane to Maui leaves on the 25th. Mr. Franz will meet you at the airport. Have fun!
You’ve got to love the Polls that give Don’t Care as an option. People feel so compelled to say something, anything about the topic that they will vote “Don’t Care”.
There’s an Australian public opinion site that gives you four options on most polls. You have a and b devoted to opposite sides of the debate, c is “Don’t Know” and d is “Don’t Care”. I’m always surprised at the number of people who vote c or d.
This thread title is the funniest I’ve seen in a VERY long time.
Poll abuse thoroughly sucks, and it has many forms. My least favorite is when media companies with both a cable channel and a big ass website (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) show poll results on their sliding tickers on TV, call the results “unscientific” and then try to draw projectable conclusions from them. That’s the whole point of calling them unscientific. If they can’t project the poll results to the general population, why the hell are they trying?
It’s probably so they can trumpet their “cross-media capabilities” to investors. Jackasses. All of 'em.
Even before the days of web polls, they would have phone-in polls. When they gave the results on the air, they would mention that the poll was “unscientific”, but as far as I know they never explained that, when it comes to polls, “unscientific” is a synonym for “horseshit”
