> It's even worse than that, Jon. As I'm sure you know, all those
> so-called "polls" done on CNN etc. based on phone in callers tell you
> only about who happened to be watching and was motivated to call in.
> Calling them "polls" degrades even that always already degraded entity.
Yes, I know that those things are nonsense, but respectable outfits like the NY Times seem to refer to the "respectable," Gallup-type polls as often as they can, apparently attempting to back up their impressions on what the public is thinking with "solid data." It seems to me that the old-fashioned journalistic practice of the journalist her/himself paying enough attention to what is going on around him/her to have an informed grasp of the public mind was just as good as quoting a poll, or better. And in reporting on countries where polling is not as "advanced," or against the law, the old method is still used. So why can't they apply it in the U.S.? Obviously, because they are afraid of being called "subjective." But journalism is always subjective -- there are just better and worse subjectivities.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org _______________________________ "Play the guitar like you don't know how to play." (Miles' instruction to John McLaughlin) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1421 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/20030803/330d9172/attachment.bin>