Commentary—

Let’s Poll On Issues, Not Popularity

By Jason Salzman

The news media, like politicians, love polls. Are John McCain and Hillary Clinton the leaders? Is John Edwards gaining on Barack Obama?

The polling overdose is more about convenience than substance. Polls make an easy story. Reporters don’t have to dissect complicated topics, like heath insurance, and polls are easy for readers to digest. We can stand around the water cooler wondering if Hillary will slip or gain in the next poll. Everybody’s happy with a poll story, right? Wrong.

Personally, I’d rather read what any candidate is saying about health insurance, the Iraq war, or pretty much any other topic, even about Monica Lewinsky. By constantly telling us who’s winning the electoral horse race, journalists deprive us of the real information we need to be able to make intelligent choices among candidates.

But that’s just one problem with the American media’s obsession with polls. A bigger problem is that, more often than not, they are meaningless. And you don’t have to be much of a political analyst to understand why. All you need is common sense, and not much of it.

I hope this doesn’t shock you, but polls are manipulated easily by how the questions are asked. Take, for example, polling on the Iraq war.

It was widely accepted that Americans favored the Iraq war before we invaded in March 2003. But, actually, it depended on how you asked the question.

It’s true that most Americans supported the invasion by a wide margin, as long as the war didn’t last very long. In four separate CBS News/New York Times polls conducted in the months leading up to the war, Americans were just about split on whether they favored the war if it lasted “months or even years.” Anybody out there remember that polling question coming up very much?

No, the message you got from reading the newspaper headlines was more simple: strong support for the war, maybe fading a touch before the invasion, but strong support nonetheless. And, of course, war support surged, if you’ll pardon the expression, after the invasion.

Now it’s in the dumps, with about 60 percent favoring withdrawal by the end of next year. There’s a lesson here for journalists. If you’re going to insist on polling us so much, which I think is a mistake, at least emphasize the nuances in our responses. Don’t just run the poll stories with the simplest answers to the simplest questions. Like, do you support Hillary or McCain?

Instead, ask voters what they think about the positions these candidates are taking on the issues. How do voters feel about Dennis Kucinich’s position on Iraq? Mitt Romney’s? What about John Edwards’ proposal on health insurance?

Yes, pollsters would have to explain what the candidates are saying about these issues. The polling would be more difficult but much more useful. The resulting news stories about voter reactions to the candidates’ positions on issues such as health care could actually provide some real insight. They’d help us formulate meaningful opinions about the candidates. And this information would allow us to get to know candidates that aren’t already household names in America.

As it is, a poll asking your typical American about a candidate he or she has never heard of is pretty meaningless, don’t you think? And most Americans don’t know a thing about folks like Democrat Bill Richardson or Republican Romney.

So, all you journalists out there, how about cutting back on the popularity-contest polls and giving us information to make informed decisions in our democracy?

(Jason Salzman is a media critic for the Rocky Mountain News and author of Making the News: A Guide for Activists and Nonprofits. He is board chair of Rocky Mountain Media Watch, a media watchdog group based in Denver.)