Confederate Symbols and Polls

Confederate symbols have been in the news lately, for good reason. So my nearby major newspaper, the AJC, asked readers in a poll what should be done with the ones scattered around Atlanta. The South rises, the paper says, in defense of Confederate art.

Preliminary results show that those voting are hot to keep the collection as is. Of the 19,500 votes cast, 81 percent voted to keep the statues and paintings with no further historical context. Fewer than 14 percent wanted them moved and just 5 percent wanted more information placed alongside them.

Wow, 81 percent. That's a helluva result. Given the hed, given these number, this must truly represent the feelings of all the folks out there. Or perhaps not.

Three graphs later, they tell us:

The poll is not scientific, but it has been popular, particularly with the Southern heritage movement online. Several Facebook pages posted the poll and urged its subscribers to vote to keep their heroes in the Capitol.

When you see "the poll is not scientific," that should come with a footnote or a caveat that says "this poll is meaningless bullshit, but we're gonna run it anyway because it's fun, and then we'll bury the graph that says it's meaningless bullshit deep in the story." In the public opinion biz we call this a SLOP, a self-selected opinion poll. In other words, those most pissed about something, those who get the word out best via social media, they're the ones over-represented in the results.

In other words, meaningless bullshit.

Don't get me wrong. I love an entertaining SLOP as much as the next guy. Usually you find them on web sites asking your favorite pick for the Oscars, or something else equally trivial. Harmless fun, especially if it's labeled as such. What I don't like, however, is when a SLOP finds its way into the news. Now this is a blog post, not a straight news story, so the AJC deserves a little leeway, but my URL shows it as investigations.blogs, ajc, etc etc. Makes me nervous to see a poll reported this way.

An N of 74 is a Survey?

I like to pick on bad surveys. Today's victim example comes from a newspaper just down the road -- Gainesville, Ga. -- that reports on a survey with an N of 74.  In other words, 74 respondents. Collected over a month and a half. From a web site.

Yes, 74. As in, if you do the math, at best an 11 percent margin of error. As in, useless.  Because the 74 aren't even random folks. It's a SLOP.

Here's the lede:

Two of six key projects in the Gainesville master transportation plan have solid support, while residents are divided over a project involving a new bridge over Lake Lanier, according to online survey results released by the city’s consultant in the effort.

So you're thinking okay, a dull but straightforward story. The lede's a bit long but not terrible. I'd grade it a B-, maybe a C+. Until the second graf, that is:

The survey involved 74 responses to questions posted July 1-Aug. 15 on the city’s website.

A whopping 74 responses? Over such a long period, from a city website? In the lede you tell me it's an online survey and I might be forgiven for thinking that it's a real survey, a scientific survey, one with a decent sample and credibility. Basically the second graf would be improved by saying "a completely useless piece of crap."

Indeed, read what the consultant says in the next couple of grafs. "Take it for what it is,” said a consultant. “It’s folks who chose to get on the Web page to give you a response. It is another form of input.”

That's consultant-speak for "this survey is complete bullshit, but it's kinda interesting bullshit, just another data point, but not a good one."

Journalists -- if it's bullshit, don't report it. Or if you report it, raise immediate critical concern in your lede that anyone would rely on this in deciding how to spend millions of hard-earned tax dollars. Instead the story goes at great lengths to report various percentages from the "survey" results.  Sigh.







 

Fruity Knowledge. Veggies Too.

Yes, this blog for four years has focused on political knowledge and especially the media's role in maintaining what people know.  Sometimes, though, you gotta go elsewhere for content, dipping into the obscure and the arcane.  Especially on slow news/academic days.

And that bring us to -- what Australians know about veggies and fruits.

Told ya.  Obscure.  Arcane.  According to this story:

A new survey of young Australians has found one in two don't know how many servings of fruit and vegetables to eat in a day, and even fewer know the serving sizes of common fruit and vegetables.

Yes, the survey of a whopping 106 college students found only 54 percent "knew the recommended daily amounts of fruit and vegetables."  This is the "first concrete evidence young Australians don't know their fruit and vegetable basics."

The boldface above, that's mine.  Concrete?  A survey of 106 college kids?  I'm not saying I don't believe the results, I'm saying the methodological problems in such a small, narrow sample are enough to make me want to skip my fruit and veggies for the day.  But there is some funny stuff here.  Read below.

Some participants estimated the serving size of grapes to be just one grape, and others estimated the serving size for carrots to be the equivalent of 20 carrots, when it is 20 grapes and half a medium-sized carrot (or half a cup of chopped carrot).

Wow.  I think we can all agree this qualifies as a major nutritional fail.  Again, I agree the results are probably accurate, that college kids are clueless on this, but the way they got there, with such a small (random?  hard to say) sample makes me wonder about just how "concrete" the results really are.

And thus ends our obscure, arcane, methodological moment.