Associate Press Blow Interpretation of Health Care Poll

What's up with the Associated Press (AP)? Seems it's been captured by the transnational corporations too (like the other three branches: U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Executive). AP has teamed up on polling with GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications... I'm not kidding, that's their name.

I was drawn to this realization after reading a recent AP article entitled, "AP-GfK Poll: Americans Split On Health Care Repeal." Oh really? "Split" usually means 50 percent for and 50 percent against.

So, out come the latest AP corporate communications numbers on the recent health care legislation:

40% Support Health Care legislation
11% Neutral on it
51% Total

45% Oppose the Health Care legislation

45% to 51% percent is almost a "split," only six points apart, but not on "repeal" of the legislation.

32% want to repeal it completely, which isn't exactly a "split" when compared with 40% who "support."

But what really got me was that the AP article makes the lame oversight that so many polls do on this topic; it doesn't directly address the question that some people who are "opposed" to the legislation didn't feel it goes far enough to truly reform health care. Well it did, but it stacked that number up against "repeal" and called it a "split."

I went to the Oct. 13-18, 2010 corporate communications poll [PDF] to look at the numbers. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the follow-up question, "of those opposed, who wants stronger legislation?" But, you can get close to the answer of that question. Here are the numbers:

18% say leave the Health Care legislation as it is.
39% say change the Health Care legislation so it does MORE.
57% Total say keep it the same or stronger Health Care legislation


9% say change the Health Care legislation so it does LESS.
32% say completely repeal the Health Care legislation.
41% Total say make it weaker or repeal it.

41% Repeal or does LESS, 57% Keep as-is or does MORE. This should have been the headline, not a lame twisting of the number to say Americans are "split" on wanting to repeal the Health Care legislation.

Instead, AP cherry picks two numbers from "likely voters" that fit a story line: Those who want stronger health care legislation and those who want repeal it, as if that is a logical comparison.

But, the damage of the headline is done, less than two weeks before the elections. Shame on the Associated Press and its corporate communications partner. It's telling that it was AP's corporate communications partner that does the interpretation of the poll video.

Let AP Know What You Think:

Contact AP:

E-mail: info@ap.org
Phone: 212 621-1500

Contact FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting to let them know what you think.

E-mail: fair@fair.org

Sources:

First posted on Challenge the Establishment blog.

Traveling GDAEman

Enjoying a respite and family time as I travel in the San Francisco Bay Area, my old stomping grounds. I've let the 24-hour news cycle pass me by for a change, but will be right back on top of the GDAE Podcast upon my return... that is, if I don't partake in a long weekend beach trip :-1

A couple thoughts have crossed my mind while traveling. One is a reflection on a segment by Fair and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) on media coverage of the on-going efforts to "reform" our anemic health care system. The commentary observed that reporters were saying, "The health care debate is so complex and nuanced that it is very difficult to cover and explain to the public." My gut reaction to that was, "It wouldn't be so complex if we had a single-payer system."

Another unrelated thought I had was a reflection on the SF Bay Area in which I grew up. It has changed so much, with many wealthy foreign people beginning to dominate the population in a place that is now nearly unaffordable to meager mortal (like myself). What happened?

Back in the early 1980s a referendum, Proposition 13, was passed based on short-term thinking and a fair amount of misinformation from the corporate quarters. It placed limits on property taxes, which on the surface sounds great. The most direct negative effect was the demise of the State's excellent public school system. A more subtle effect was the following.

Controls on property taxes made it possible for housing prices to inflate drastically, in part because there was little impact on existing home owners. Traditional property tax policies would have put the breaks on the outrageous home price increases. Once the housing prices got inflated, there was no way to reverse the Proposition 13 policy, because the taxes would have been unbearable. Prop 13 created an irreversible trap.

Because of the cost of a home, families like mine that had been in the Bay Area began feeling pressure to split up. Kids couldn't afford to buy a decent house here, so they had to move away. However, the most wealthy foreigners could afford the prices. As a result, the composition of the Bay Area has change irreversibly.

My parents and I, having left the Bay Area temporarily, cannot afford to return to live near my siblings, unless we want to live in a shoe box. This is a profound unintended consequence of the short-term thinking of Proposition 13.

Enough musing for now. It's time to enjoy my brief time here in sunny CA.