Arroyo pollster commissioned SWS
to test political messages

another privately commissioned survey much like the AMA-commissioned surveys in the past. when gloria and her minions select survey results favorable to them and use them for propaganda, only one question needs to be answered in appraising the poll results:

who commissioned the survey?

…and to think the Sunday ads were paid for by the taxpayers. http://www.quezon.ph/blog/?p=900#comment-16656

a two-part article on 1. ARROYO POLL STRATEGY…

It was this belief in the crystal ball powers of surveys that drew Ms Arroyo close to Junie Laylo, a pollster who once occupied a top position in the polling firm Social Weather Stations headed by Poe cousin Mahar Mangahas.
http://www.inq7.net/nat/2004/jul/28/nat_10-3.htm

and 2. THE MAKING OF A PRESIDENT…

It was a smart move, the Palace official said. A survey done for Ms Arroyo showed that 70 percent of voters who would write De Castro’s name on their ballots would also vote for Ms Arroyo. The survey was conducted by Junie Laylo, a pollster who once occupied a top position in the polling firm Social Weather Stations.

“Vote transferability” was the term used to describe the De Castro effect.
http://www.inq7.net/nat/2004/jul/29/nat_4-1.htm

So who said that surveys are unreliable? GMA and her cohorts of course. So I suppose we can now shove this statement up their tight “a**es”.

Sa kabila ng mga personal opinion at biases natin, huwag sana naman natin ibasura ang buod ng survey sapagkat ito ay nagpapahiwatig ng damdamin ng maraming tao. Ang akin lang, ang mahalaga ay hindi ito ginawa ng pamahalaan at kundi isang independent at neutral na organization na pinagkakatiwalaan. Kung sa iyong palagay mataas ang kredibilidad nito dapat namang unawain ang sinasabi ng survey sapagkat ang lahat ng ito ay hindi lang opinion mo o ako o nila kundi opinion ng higit na nakararaming tao. Di ka man sangayon sa resulta ng survey hindi mo maipagkakaila na higit ang mga tao na hindi rin sangayon sa iyo. We are all for truth, let’s accept it even if it hurts.

Toro,

I think that’s being selective. Why don’t you tell that to Malacañang which keeps dismissing surveys whose results it doesn’t agree with as mere popularity contests?

27 April 2006

Hey guys,

Off Topic.

Have you heard or read the statement of Col. Tristan Kison regarding the congressional hearing to be conducted by the Senate, it goes like this:

“For the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ (AFP) top brass, section g-200-013 of the AFP Rules and Regulations issued on Dec. 29, 1967 is a law superior to the Constitution, even with a Supreme Court (SC) ruling that the AFP officers and men can be compelled by Congress to attend and testify before the body on inquiries in aid of legislation”

People should wake up, for tomorrow, the next day or next week, we are already in martial law.

Does he knows, “that civilian supremacy is over the military???” baka hindi nya alam yan.

Is this prelude to martial law???that gloria, her clowns and her generals (prostituted) intends to declare in the coming days???

just asking????

jinx

It’s just a survey.
Why does not media report also other surveys of groups against the administration?
As if whatever the results of the survey would be will be doubted already from the start.
Insted, the surveys commissioned for those against the administrtation are ok & can only be true.
What is so investigative journalissim about just making sumbong about something?
And what the opposition does is not being sumbong.

[...] PCIJ blog reports on the Palace testing its political messages through polling. The Social Weather Stations explains why it could disclose it’s having been commissioned to do the test: [...]

Oo nga, Alecks. Sabi ni Sec. Bunye noong isang buwan lang, “This nation will not move forward on the weight of polls. It is a clear plan for the nation and the determination to carry it out that will make the difference.” (OPS)

look who’s talking. agree ederic, alecks. funny how malacanang discredits surveys specifically if the results are against the administration. yet, listen to what they are saying now.

1) “This nation will not move forward on the weight of polls.

2) “Let the Numbers Speak: It’s Time to Move Forward,”

both coming from the same source. another double speak.

ederic et.al.,

malacanang is just fooling us with its propaganda. see http://www.philippinepage.blogspot.com to note how flawed the test statements are. and SWS is allowing itself to be an instrument of Malacanang for its propaganda ek-ek?

[...] * Arroyo pollster commissioned SWS to test political messages  [...]

“I think that’s being selective. Why don’t you tell that to Malacañang which keeps dismissing surveys whose results it doesn’t agree with as mere popularity contests? ”

Hmm, I could sense some agitation there, Alecks, sorry. My statement was not meant to provoke anything. It was given as a matter of fact. Yes, I’m being selective in the sense that if the survey is done by the government itself I will not believe it, but if an independent group like SWS is commissioned to do the survey yes I will consider the survey credible, just as I consider other SWS surveys in disagreement with the administration credible too.

Malacanang can always deny, but we both know how the game is played. Even private groups motivated by self-interests rely on surveys too for feedback, but clam up when the results are not good. You’ve heard I’m sure of surveys which Malacanang had commissioned but never made public because the results were atrociously bad. Any govt will deny anything that won’t make it look good. But, if the SWS public survey happens to be favorable to the govt why not take it as it is. Or, take it with a grain of salt. It will not help make your attitude towards the administration change, will it?

No need to apologize, Toro.

Just to assure you too, we’re not being selective with the surveys — done either by SWS or Pulse Asia — that we post here. We just report them on the blog as they come — no matter if they cast the government in a good or bad light. Unfortunately, it’s more of the latter that’s the case.

jr_lad and tikboyblue: We hear Bunye, et al, talk in Orwellian doublespeak everyday, and it isn’t surprising anymore. But despite this, the media must carry these statements–and surveyes, too–as part of its coverage.

The survey questions are subjectively flawed as any competent social psychologist would immediately see that the questions were framed.

As subtle as it is powerful, the frame allows a communicator to manipulate choice alternatives in order to influence thinking processes and obtain consent–without ever appearing to attempt to persuade. The target of influence is seldom aware that a particular response has been induced.

Ditto with the expensive print ads the PIA has been churning out.

What’s a frame?

It is a psychological device that offers a perspective and manipulates salience in order to influence subsequent judgment.

It “offers” a skewed, subjective perspective of the issue on handby managing the viewer’s alignment in relation to the issue.

Just as a picture frame can obscure a painting from an oblique view, so a psychological frame invites the observer to view the topic from a certain perspective.

Laylo reminds me of the story tells of an Italian patron of the arts who took a beautiful picture frame to Leonardo da Vinci and asked him to paint a picture that would fit within it.

Ludicrous as this sounds, a successful psychological frame operates in precisely this fashion.

Information received after the frame is delivered may be organized and resized to fit within the parameters established by the frame. The frame not only contains, but constrains.

Nice try but no dice, Laylo.

Orwellian, doublespeak, doble cara, sinungaling, ano pa pwede itawag sa mga taga administrasyon? They do say one thing and do the opposite. Anybody who wants to promote himself can do that but when exposed his credibility suffers. That’s exactly what’s happening to this current administration. Or to what is left of it’s credibility, kung meron pang natira!

GMA accepts surveys when she claims it supports her win in the elections
GMA do not accept surveys that she is disliked very much by the people
GMA do not accept surveys that the people wants her out of the palace
GMA uses surveys to check what the people thinks! (in line with this post).

Surveys are just what they are - surveys
If not they should be called something else - the truth nothing but the truth
Surveys are just instruments ment to measure or take the pulse in a given period or reactions to issues.
Surveys measure peoples reaction.
One survey an even contradict another all depending on how questions are placed, demography & other factors.
I think they are far from being considered as a clear vote for or against anything or anyone.
The media carries them cause they also need materials to fill up the pages.Then they present their own slants according to what will be more attractive to the readers.

so, what’s your take with that PIA adds? why waste public money based on surveys? “Surveys are just what they are - survey”

joselu,

“The media carries them cause they also need materials to fill up the pages.Then they present their own slants according to what will be more attractive to the readers.”

are you implying that the media is inherently biased or that the media reports only what is sensational?

Hey Jojo, welcome back!

Yes, in journalism, they are the equivalent of double-barreled, loaded, leading questions. A definite no-no!

Glad to be back Alecks.

I’m trying to imagine President Arroyo telling Laylo:

Iyung frame, iyung frame!

:hehe:

Additional explanations to the Laylo’s insidious device are available at the abovementioned link to my blog entry.

Following your line of reasoning, Jojo, does it follow then that those were flawed survey questions that manipulated the thinking process of the masa to render Gloria to be unpopular?

There’s a difference between knowing what the people feel and believe versus knowing what the people will accept and tolerate.

The survey resulted in Ads paid for by PIA money (people’s tax money). The survey tried to see what the people will accept (Let’s move on mantra), and that’s what they used in the ads.

Jester,hello, media is a money making institution, it needs to sell newspapers to make money.Media has never been the source of the complete truth nothing but the truth.
I did not mention sensational. I mentioned slant.Slant is the aspect of the story that is more intrigueing or catches the peoples attention.Everything depends on w/c side of the fence the media outfit is or what is their market.

Toro said:Following your line of reasoning, Jojo, does it follow then that those were flawed survey questions that manipulated the thinking process of the masa to render Gloria to be unpopular?

The Laylo questionnaire is flawed. Ergo the answers to it are unreliable.

As you can see, the “questions” were designed so as to elicit particular “answers” that could only favor President Arroyo and her current policies.

Gloria is unpopular because she is deemed to be dishonest and is no longer fit for the post. This based on many objective and subjective reasons too many to detail in a single blog entry.

And yes, manipulative is the apt word to describe the Laylo frame device.

Jon, going by your fill & beleave compared to accept & tolerate. Is it right to say that the people fill & beleave so many things but are still tolerating everything?
Is it completely impossibe that the “move on mantra” is untrue?
I have allways had the impression that many “silent” people are indeed moving on.
In a way it’s a sign that much more people are moving on better then entertaining matters that are beyound them or getting mixed up in the dirty political atmosphere that there is divisive & brings out the worst in people.
Since it’s a free country I think PIA can also sponsor surveys.Nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.
Contesting what goverment does is like being afriad people will beleave them & not the others who are against goverment.
Just like contesting the signiture drive is being afraid that they just might succeed & will make those fighting against change irrelevant.

that wasn’t much of an answer, joselu, it’s quite evasive.

“Media has never been the source of the complete truth nothing but the truth.”

and the government has been?

Jester, I could not have been evasive cause I was talking about media earlier.
Sana you wrote clearly what was your point.
When you mentioned sensationalissim that is a term normaly connected to media.
You could have been more acuarte by saying goverment propaganda as compared to media hype.
Goverment & media say what ever they want.
At the end of the day it’s up to each individual what he/she wants to beleave.
Each one has his/her own perception of the so called truth or whatever appeals to an individual to be the truth.
I think what is more important then wanting the so called truth is to understand deeper the intension of people.
Truth can also be subjective. To a person you fully agree w/, it’s more likely you will not doubt him. But to a person you don’t agree w/, nothing he can say will be truth to you.

People are moving on with their lives Joselu, I just hope that we don’t forget what we believe is true.

What I think; in specifics, is that many believe that GMA has cheated and is not a good president (as the surveys show), but they’re unwilling to support what they believe with actions (like overthrowing her or supporting those on the streets calling for her to resign). In effect they’re accepting Gloria by default, which is not very good because it’s not standing up to what you believe.

joselu,

i understand the difference between slant and sensationalism. when you used the phrase “what will be more attractive to the readers,” i took it to mean what stories would prompt more sales and ratings, hence, my second question.

furthermore, with your statement, “Jester,hello, media is a money making institution, it needs to sell newspapers to make money,” again, i took it to mean in the same way i’ve described above.

your use of the word “slant” prompted me to ask my first question.

your statement “Media has never been the source of the complete truth nothing but the truth” prompted me to ask my third.

your statement “I think what is more important then wanting the so called truth is to understand deeper the intension of people… Truth can also be subjective” has prompted me to ask my fourth.

they are all yes/no questions, by the way.

1. are you implying that the media is inherently biased?
2. are you implying that the media reports only what is sensational?
3. has the government been the source of the “complete truth, nothing but the truth?”
4. are you saying that between perpetuating a lie with the best of intentions and demanding the truth out of not-as-honorable intent, the former is preferable?

yeses and noes, qualified or not, would be sufficient. i merely want to understand where you’re coming from.

Folks,

This is not meant to be a dampener to the lively discussion going on here. But could everyone just exert a little effort at correct spelling? My apologies, Joselu, but you tend to write cryptically because you spell some words incorrectly. I could allow probable keyboard slips as “intension” (for intention) or “beyound” (for beyond) — even “acuarte” (for accurate). But “fill” when the word should be “feel”, or “beleave” instead of “believe”?

I don’t mind if we use Filipino to make ourselves plain and understandable. Peace!

All, fyi Joselu has the history of writing using mangled spelling. He claims it’s not intentional (in MlQ3’s blog), but he once claimed to use it to spite/irritate others and force some response.

Mariano said,
April 27, 2006 @ 4:39 pm

All, fyi Joselu has the history of writing using mangled spelling. He claims it’s not intentional (in MlQ3’s blog), but he once claimed to use it to spite/irritate others and force some response.

====================================================

hehehe shades of “double speak” peace!

my take on joselu? oh common, stop pretending to be objective and coming from the masa. your choice of words betrays you even if you and another blogger are as what jester implied on his blog (http://jester-in-exile.blogspot.com/), deliberately dumbing down your grammar and spellings. bloggers here are not that stupid.

guys, meta-discussion. let’s give the fellow a chance (all due respect to alecks et al’s niche in the blogosphere).

besides, i’m looking forward to my questions being answered.

We tried reasoning with Joselu that using good grammar and spelling shows respect to other bloggers and readers. We also gave suggestions on how to improve on spelling.

But Joselu does make the discussions lively!

Ok, enough of the meta-conversational drift I am “accused” of instigating. Let’s move back to the issue at hand…

Jester, good luck. He’s never going to give you direct answers!

jester,
1. media is a business.Like I already said media will always have a slant.I refer to it as a slant but other would probably use another word.Maybe it’s the reason individuals prefer other newspaper over others.
2.Again, it’s you who uses the word “sensational”. I have always used the word slant.
3. Liken I have already said meida & goverment say what ever they want. It’s up to the individual to judge.
4. I think your the one saying those things. I don’t think I ever mentioned either one thing preferable to another.I only made an exsample of a situation where an individual will most likely give more trust to a person he is in agrement w/ & not.Is there a problem wanting to understand peoples intensions to determine the truth in what they say? Because that is what I said. Does that sound starnge?
Is there something wrong from refereing the truth as being subjective from individual to individual?

Jon, I think your being unfair.I don’t know what you want to prove.Is it that you are better then the others?
Jon your also the greatest mind reader of people.The only thing is you show no results & always more excuses.

joselu,

if i might point out, my questions were all answerable by yes/ no. qualified yeses or noes are also welcome. see, i think it might help in our discussion if i knew precisely where you stood on the issue.

may i therefore ask again?

1. are you implying that the media is inherently biased?
2. are you implying that the media reports only what is sensational?
3. has the government been the source of the “complete truth, nothing but the truth?”
4. are you saying that between perpetuating a lie with the best of intentions and demanding the truth out of not-as-honorable intent, the former is preferable?

just that. we can move on to your points after we know on what part of the sand will we draw the line.

No offense Joselu. We are in disagreement in almost everything but I respect your stand.

I thought I was helping other bloggers here not to go to the “help” mode in trying to help you improve your spelling. Peace man.

Now back to the survey; as I mentioned before I am a card carrying member of the conservative party of canada and yes we do commission our own survey and yes we publish the survey that looks good for our party and deep six the bad ones, but one thing though it is the party money we spent to conduct the survey. so we can do whatever with its results. and the party money is ours to spend in whatever the party wishes. simply means as long as no taxpayers money involved and the survey result is not manipulated, no problem with that -hide the bad one and show the good one. let the oppositions show their good sides and also hide their bad ones. even..

Naykika, pansin ko lang dito sa Canada nasobrahan naman sa dami ng surveys…Almost everyday may tumatawag sa phone para mag-survey, kung anu-ano na lang ang subjects. Mas lalo na kung campaign period. But most surveys I know here, hindi na nilalabas pa sa media ang resulta..they just want to feel the pulse at malaman kung saan sila nagkukulang.

Personally, hindi ako naniniwala sa SWS o Pulse Asia…ke pabor o hindi yan sa administrasyon. Ano ba and dala ng mga resulta nila? Nothing, Nada..just to divide the people. Nagagamit ba ang resulta nito sa pagpapaunlad ng ekonomiya? Nagagamit ba ang resulta para sa pagbabago? Nagagamit ba ang resulta para makagawa ng mga bagong batas? Ang tanging dala nyan ay pagsabungin ang administrasyon at oposisyon at ma-itsapuwera na naman ang taumbayan.

To put it plainly, “if you ask a man who has not eaten for three days if the food you fed him is delicious, bland as it may be”, what would you think the answer would be? This is what Jojo had been pointing out.

As for Joselu’s take on the media, PIA is a government agency. Therefore, its spending people’s money. It has an unlimited funding and does need sales to support its existence. The administration also practices sensationalism and even goes futher to concocting lies to justify its “pro-actions”. The administration also has a horde of spindoctors to further set a mindset to divert the attention of the populace.

Media is an institution though with ethical limitations must report and even give its own opinions. This is the esscence of press freedom. Its the eyes and ears of the nation and its people. Its suppose to report people’s sentiments and wrong-doings in government. Its all up to us, the public to be discerning.

“…simply means as long as NO TAXPAYERS MONEY involved and the survey result is not manipulated, no problem with that.”

whatabout this Naykika?

“Laylo, popularly known as President Arroyo’s personal pollster, “personally designed” four test items, the results of which became the basis for the April 23 ad, “Let the Numbers Speak: It’s Time to Move Forward,” placed by the Philippine Information Agency in the Philippine Star and Philippine Daily Inquirer.”

jr_lad ; that is the problem, using the taxpayer money for no value in return. if the survey is used as economic guide instead of guaging the govt. popularity, then i’d rather see they used their own personal money. As scud said we are bombarded with surveys everyday, by phone, by internet, but most are for getting the feel or the pulse of the public for business or govt. policies. and majority of the surveys are on the money, except during the election where the pollters are always the fools.

Jojo,
“Just as a picture frame can obscure a painting from an oblique view, so a psychological frame invites the observer to view the topic from a certain perspective.”

I had glimpse of the ‘praymer’ (theirs) on charter change that ‘Sigaw ng Bayan’ is using for their signature campaign. A portion reads like: “ Gusto mo bang mapalitan ang porma ng gobiyerno to a unicameral parliamentary para maiwasan ang gridlock at umunad ang bayan?”

Have you seen it? Can you tell us if there is as much ‘framing’ in it as the LielowSurvey done by SWS?

On surveys, while we’re at it, I wonder what option the people would prefer at this point to resolve the impasse. This afternoon AgSur Rep Ompong Plaza appealed to GMA and Noli to give way for a snap election to ‘avert a civil war’. Last March Sen Angara proposed a joint resolution for amendments to ‘cut short the Pres and VP’s term, reform COMELEC, set/include the Election for Pres and VP on 2007. There other initiatives preparing to push for a snap election. A survey on this at this point could provide crucial information that has a high probability of being translated into concrete action. The timing is good.

If we survey the horizon many of us will agree that dark clouds up ahead.

Just consider the first item of the poll: “The members of the opposition against President Arroyo should start helping to improve the economy and stop too much politics.” The statement is deliberately designed to make it difficult for a thinking person to choose the “disagree” option. Pag pinili mo ang “disagree” iisipin mo muna, ibig sabihin ba ayaw mo na ang opposition ay tumulong para ma-improve ang economy? Ibig bang sabihin gusto mo ng “too much politics”? Masyadong heavy ang slant towards the “agree” option.

Tom said (at pcij),
April 28, 2006 @ 3:20 am

Just consider the first item of the poll: “The members of the opposition against President Arroyo should start helping to improve the economy and stop too much politics.” The statement is deliberately designed to make it difficult for a thinking person to choose the “disagree” option. Pag pinili mo ang “disagree” iisipin mo muna, ibig sabihin ba ayaw mo na ang opposition ay tumulong para ma-improve ang economy? Ibig bang sabihin gusto mo ng “too much politics”? Masyadong heavy ang slant towards the “agree” option.

a response bias from a double-barreled question.

Combining the two questions into one question makes it unclear which attitude* (help the economy OR stop too much politics) is being measured, as each question may elicit a different attitude. Tip: If the word “and” appears in a question, check to verify whether it is a double-barreled question.

http://knowledge-base.supersurvey.com/response-bias.htm

*Attitudinal objects – objects within a survey question. Example: Do you think teachers should have more contact with parents? The attitudinal object is “parents”

oops, am in a hurry…missed tags:

a response bias from a double-barreled question.

Combining the two questions into one question makes it unclear which attitude* (help the economy OR stop too much politics) is being measured, as each question may elicit a different attitude. Tip: If the word “and” appears in a question, check to verify whether it is a double-barreled question.

Sapul na sapul mo yung point ko, baycas. Using just the criterion of having a single subject matter, all four fail, in my opinion. Item 2 contains two connectives and effectively combines three subject matters. The ordinary poll respondent does not know this tactic of the pollster and has no clue that he/she is being manipulated into choosing the pollster’s desired response. Hindi maaasahan ang resulta ng naturang poll. Ke administration or opposition ang gumagamit ng ganyang tactic, hindi tama.

“The members of the opposition against President Arroyo should start helping to improve the economy and stop too much politics.”

That poll question is directed more to the opposition because obviously a pro-admin will say yes to that. The question contains two points that a truthful thinking person will ask himself for an honest answer of yes or no. First, do I want the opposition to help GMA improve the economy? Second, is there really too much politics going on? That’s as simple as it can get and can be answered truthfully sans biases. . No mambo jambo please.

Beware, the chacha movement, as it is being portrayed by recent Bunyetas, is supposedly a monstrous bandwagon of “recently-enlightened” Pinoys who have chosen to move on and hitch on over to prosperity. The fiction that this too-sudden paradigm shift advances is that the system is inherently defective that the present leaders cannot be faulted for their actions. Who would be stupid enough to believe that the Pinoy frame of mind has changed overnight when it has not been substatiated with any evident manifestation even by the thinking class, how much more the masses?

Crap.

This has been the spin for a long time now, you hear the President’s spokesperson (whose every word is a calibrated lie) repeatedly referring to metaphorical snowballs or rampaging trains, when speaking about Chacha while dismissing as passe, divisive or destabilizing any talk about Gloria’s sins.

This survey designed by the lowlife, lay-low, Laylo is in the same mold - to overemphasize on the positive (at least, positive to Gloria) and attribute these to her achievements (to the extent of credit-grabbing, in the case of the exchange rate and GNP improvement) and to dismiss totally all talks of corruption, abuses, gridlocks as inevitable dead-ends of the defective political structure.

Crap, still.

Lucky for Gloria, not one of my children are graduating any time soon.

alecks said it: Yes, in journalism, they are the equivalent of double-barreled, loaded, leading questions. A definite no-no!

and tikoyblue explained all 4 statements in http://www.philippinepage.blogspot.com/ :

The test statements, as dissected, are as follows:

Test Statement 1. “Ang mga miyembro ng oposisyon laban kay Pangulong Arroyo ay dapat nang magsimulang tumulong upang bumuti ang kalagayan ng ekonomiya at ihinto na ang sobrang pamumulitika” (The members of the opposition against President Arroyo should start helping to improve the economy and stop too much politics),

The test statement has two parts: (1)The members of the opposition against President Arroyo should start helping to improve the economy, and (2) The members of the opposition against President Arroyo should stop too much politics. What Laylo, the pollster of Gloria in the Palace, did is to combine the two statements into one sentence that if a respondent is not keen, or is not closely paying attention to the interviewer (which is the usual thing because respondents are doing something while answering their guest-interviewers), the answer will definitely be yes. It should be stressed that helping to improve the economy is different from stopping too much politics.

Test Statement 2 “Anuman ang nangyari noong eleksyon ay tapos na at panahon na para isantabi ito at hayaan ang pangulo na pagtuunan ang mga tunay na problema ng bansa” (Whatever happened in the elections is over and it is time to move on and let the president focus on the real problems of the nation).

Again, the statement is a combination of multiple statements. These are as follows: (1) Whatever happened in the elections is over; (2) it is time to move on (3) let the president focus on the real problems of the nation. The elections is over, no doubt. It is time to move on, really. And who doesn’t want to move on? Generally, nobody, right? And lastly, the president should focus on the real problems of the nation. All of these will elucidate affirmative responses. But the most crucial part is the third one: the president should focus on the real problems of the nation. Did the test statement laid out the qualifications for the phrase “real problems of the nation”? Well, it seems not. Even the SWS is silent about it. What if the respondent thinks the real problem is the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration? And that question of legitimacy needs to be addressed because it prevents us from moving forward? Will not the respondent agree to the test-statement because his only choice is to agree or to disagree?

Test statement 3: (c) “Tama ang plano ni Pangulong Arroyo para sa bansa at ekonomiya ngunit hindi ito umuusad nang kasing bilis sa inaasahan ng karaniwang mamamayan” (President Arroyo has the right plan for the nation and the economy but it is not moving fast enough as expected by the average citizen)

How should we expect the respondent to answer this test statement then? If the stress is given to the phrases “plano ni Pangulong Arroyo para sa bansa at ekonomiya” and “hindi ito umuusad nang kasing bilis sa inaasahan ng karaniwang mamamayan”, the answer will, of course, be on the affirmative.

Simply put, the statement is again divisible into several parts: Does the respondent know that Arroyo has plans for the nation? Does the respondent know that Arroyo has plans for the economy? What are the plans that the respondents know? Which plans do the respondents think are right? Which are not? Are the plans being implemented? Is the implementation as fast as what an average citizen thinks?

Test Statement 4: “Dapat bigyan ng pagkakataon na ipakita ng mga kumpanya sa pagmimina na posibleng mapangalagaan ang kapaligiran habang nagbibigay ng kinakailangang dagdag na trabaho sa bansa” (Mining companies should be given a chance to show that it is possible to protect the environment even as they offer the needed jobs to the country).

This, again is leading. it is composed of several parts: That mining companies be given a chance; that mining companies should be allowed to provide jobs; and that for mining companies it is possible to protect the environment.

And SWS is allowing it to happen?

…they have their reasons, tikoyblue. surveys are scientific, they may be put to good use but sometimes they may be complete deceptions and tend to confuse the respondents. favorable or unfavorable surveys done very well after effective appraisal (including the elimination of biases) need to be published while hoaxes need to be debunked.

laylo’s questions, i believe, have a tendency to deceive and to confuse…so, no mumbo jumbo* please, mr. junie…

thanks to alecks, tikoyblue and tom for credible explanations…and supersurvey tutorials too!

—–

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbo_Jumbo_(phrase)

never really got an answer to my questions…

anyway, kudos to alecks, tikboyblue and torn for the very lucid explanations.

here’s a question: is it possible to craft a survey question that does not have a slant at all?

my take on the survey questions:

malinaw pa sa sikat ng araw, na ito ay isang ’slanted’;

trial lawyers, uses this trick this all the time.

it is termed “leading questions”, hence, the adversary on the other end often pleads to the judge and ask that it should be stricken off the record. the pleading goes this way, ” Objection your Honor, the question is leading and tantamount to fishing expediton”. the judge will then, rule - either sustain or overrule. (try reading, any perry mason’s, trial related novels).

ano ngayon ang tawag dito sa sakit na ito?

imho, it is called INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

tikboyblue…, thanks for the incisive dissection.

jester…, it is possible kung ang gagawa ay walang sakit na intellectual dishonesty.

Question - is it possible to craft a survey question that does not have a slant at all?

All political survey questions have a slant without exception. They are designed for a purpose. But, the question, is it possible to craft one without a slant? Yes, what it takes is only to be truthful with the questions in order to get honest answers.

Ano ba ang ibig sabihin nito: LAYLO is the PERSONAL POLLSTER of Mrs. Arroyo? diba ang sasabihin mo

ay pawang magaganda.dahil baka mapagalitan ka ng amo mo ang ang perang ginamit ay pera ng taong

bayan.hangang saan nakarating ang survey na ito?I doubt kung umabot ba sla dito sa Mindanao o kahit

dito na lang sa ILIGAN CITY kasi sabi nya taga Iligan daw sya.Hindi nga sya nanalo dito noong election

sa totoo lang sa TIMOGA kung saan nanduon ang ancestral house nila walang botante ang bumuto sa

kanya.

Polls are polls and only numbers but they do reflect opinion of a moment, But, I must say it is an accurate “feeling” of a lot of people on this mater I have come across in my work. But Polls change- opinions change and issues change all the time.

My Dad, George Cohen, did surveys with the company he ran Robot statistics a long time ago; He often is mentioned when people go back to old politics and pre-martial law politics.
.
So you might say, I grew up on surveys and tabulation and interpretation seeing him get urgent phone calls and seeing them burn the midnight oil a lot when I was a kid.

So, yes- at that moment in time- that was the opinion for that question; surveys are business and people subscribe to them. They follow certain rules and ethics and few reliable surveyors of public opinion would ever want to be accused of being biased. No one will hire you if you are. But questions, do represent a legitimate point or idea people are seeking a response to - if some people don’t like the answer.

then go out a do another survey. ask a different question! And see if there is a different answer. But, never ever be prisoner to surveys in ones actions; these are guides of opinion at specific time and place and on a issue.

A survey is not a divine proclamation from a mountain top. Just a sampling of a idea, issue, or thought.

On media; I work in it, yes it is a business, it does make money for the owners and the corporations that own the franchises or newspapers but writers, producers, opinion columnists and others working in it sometimes forget this.

Unless; of course the media outlet is a cooperative but even they need to earn. Or a non-profit media outlet or something of a cause oriented group’s or government or non-government organizations information unit.
Even government has media Also does the groups against government it is always after all a battle. for the minds and hearts of peoples opinion.

All these read or report or look at surveys as way to get the pulse of opinion. So as my Dad often told us; when we were kids, opinion is a business and being able to gauge it be it as salesman, a government leader, or as a person. It is always good to know what people think and what is needed in order to be able to gauge if your product will sell in the marketplace of the mind.

.
.

[...] http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=866#comments " Polls are polls and only numbers but they do reflect opinion of a moment, But, I must say it is an accurate “feeling” of a lot of people on this mater I have come across in my work. But Polls change- opinions change and issues change all the time. [...]

As far as I can recall, gloria arroyo and company DOES NOT BELIEVE in surveys.

The only thing I know of gloria arroyo and company are a new breed of political animals who has almost or alrready perfected the science of convencience, in addition only to lying.

The arroyo gang also has it’s own interpretation of the constitution and the laws of the land. Depending on what purpose it will serve them well.
Isn’t it dangerous? For me, gloria is a mad woman masquerading as head of state.
Do we have to wait for bigger damages this mad woman will inflict on us?
Survey or no survey, this mad woman has to go!!!!!!!

Juan Makabayan said,.
Jojo,
“Just as a picture frame can obscure a painting from an oblique view, so a psychological frame invites the observer to view the topic from a certain perspective.”

I had glimpse of the ‘praymer’ (theirs) on charter change that ‘Sigaw ng Bayan’ is using for their signature campaign. A portion reads like: “ Gusto mo bang mapalitan ang porma ng gobiyerno to a unicameral parliamentary para maiwasan ang gridlock at umunad ang bayan?”

Have you seen it? Can you tell us if there is as much ‘framing’ in it as the LielowSurvey done by SWS?

I haven’t seen the Lambino primer but based on the sample you’ve given, yes framing and representative heuristics also exist in the document.

And while Palace sycophants have taken manipulation as second nature, the media and the opposition set frames and heuristics likewise, either consciously or subconsciously.

Introduction to Infuence explains:

… the [media] dramatically shapes the way we view current issues. As early as 1920, a scientist named Lippman proposed that the media would control public opinion by focusing attention on selected issues while ignoring others. Known as the “agenda-setting” hypothesis, the idea that people were easily susceptible to media influence was soon derided as an overly simplistic misperception of the viewing audience.

Communications scientist Robert Entman (1993) states that “Journalists may follow the rules for objective reporting and yet convey a dominant framing of the news that prevents most audience members from making a balanced assessment of a situation.”

This requires that we ask a fundamental question: if media elites can effectively shape public opinion by emphasizing certain issues and ignoring others, what is the nature of a modern, media-dominated democracy?

Does public opinion reside in the minds of citizens, or is public opinion manufactured elsewhere and then merely deposited in the minds of citizens?

Entman thinks that attempting to determine the public’s ‘true’ opinion is often a futile effort, since opinions can be as easily manufactured as they can be measured.

How does one defend oneself against manipulative frames? A difficult question, as most frames escape notice. This is because we are generally too busy or distracted to realize an issue has been framed. Nonetheless, the following steps are suggested to combat framing manipulation:

1.] Write the decision, with “vs.” between issues. Then ask: “Are these truly the issues, or have they shifted?” If so, reframe.

2.] If a decision seems to be a simple open-and-shut case, ask, “What other frames would be appropriate? Is this decision really this simple or is an existing frame making it seem so?”

3.] Remember that you are in charge of your frames. Ask yourself, “What’s important here?” and then act accordingly.

4.] If you encounter a situation in which a communicator stands to benefit from your compliance, ask: “What’s the agenda for the person presenting this information? Why is this particular aspect of the topic being made salient?” Be suspicious. Attempt to counter with alternate frames.

[...] The GMA government commissioned its own survey with a “let’s move on” theme but of course, has completely ignored the previous independent surveys that say most of us want GMA out of Malacañang. There’s nothing new or interesting about this maneuver. GMA’s PR tactics are beginning to bore me. [...]

[...] Last April 27, the SWS disclosed it was privately commissioned by Arroyo pollster Pedro R. Laylo Jr. to include in its March 2006 survey four items to test the public’s reactions to political messages of the Arroyo administration. [...]

[...] In March this year, its pollster had even commissioned the Social Weather Stations to include in its survey the test statement, “Mining companies should be given a chance to show that it is possible to protect the environment even as they offer the needed jobs to the country.” [...]

[...] for the use of surveys to test political messages, see Arroyo pollster commissioned SWS to test political messages, April 27, [...]