Re: Two Articles about What Brits Know (or Don't)...

In article <memo.20080205171655.1756A@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 prd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Paul Dormer) wrote:

> In article <slrnfqh3bq.b14.andyl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, andyl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Andy Leighton) wrote:
> 
> > That is the problem with a lot of these surveys - they are not 
> > really very scientific.  I listened to a BBC radio programme that 
> > featured a segment on these PR surveys a few months ago.  By 
> > choosing the sequence of questions carefully, and a few other 
> > tricks, the PR company can more or less guarantee a favourable 
> > result for your organisation.
> 
> There was a bit on Yes, Minister where Sir Humphrey demonstrated this.
> He asked Bernard a series of questions which led to him saying he was
> against a particular policy.  Then he asked a different series of
> question which showed he was in favour.

In the case initially cited, the obvious objective is to generate a good 
news story, which one does by rigging it to get striking results. It 
helps if the results make people look ignorant, thus letting the readers 
feel superior.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the oft-cited numbers on U.S. 
religious beliefs came from the same sorts of polls, but I don't know.

-- 
 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
 Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
 Published by Baen, in bookstores now