Polls

http://retropoll.org/results_poll_05.htm


Polls have been used in America for decades and the purposes vary. Some say the polls are there to make the public understand that they can affect pslitics and policy others feel it’s really so politicians can know the public opinion and “adjust” their opinion accordingly

Regardless, polls do consistently have their flaws. Many public opinion polls have a core problem of people being scared/embarrassed to admit they don’t know the answer or even worse, understand a question. This causes them to guess which creates inaccuracies and throw off the polling data. Also many political polls have the problem of surveying people that don’t vote because they don’t care as they feel that they can’t change anything so why waste the time? Plus, both polls have the issue of often only pointing out subtle differences.

The poll I chose was a public opinion poll. There were 30 questions most with a ‘back and forth” and forth that “engages” the respondent and gives a clearer picture than a short answer poll.

These polls begin with a few questions about opinions of the war on terrorism. Then they asked about ten questions regarding the bill of rights. After that, they went back to current politics and issues.

A major point that I took specific interest in was the percentage of respondents who answered “I don’t know”. They varied from eight percent to over sixty percent. As many of these questions were follow up questions (to a previous question), I found it rather odd that in one question seven percent wouldn’t know and in the next one twenty percent wouldn’t know. .

This inconsistency portrayed to me one of the fundamental flaws of polling especially polls such as these. In general its against human nature to admit you don’t know an answer, so in order not to look (or feel) like an idiot, they guess. The fact that people flat out guessed answers in these polls left me wondering how can we trust these if they aren’t the people who know enough to formulate a real opinion

George Orwell’s article “Politics an the English Language” was very interesting for me. As someone who when he picks up the times takes out the sports section then throws out the rest of or when I chose to pick up people over a news week it left me asking why do I not care about the important things that goes in the world?

The answer to this question was very clearly explained in Orwell’s article. The fact that politicians make a three page paper for an issue that should have only had one paper on it or that even if they did make it a sufficient length, they would use so many enigmatic , ambiguous , vague, indistinguishable, interchangeable ,oxymoronic ,hazy ,indistinct blurred and faint terms.( I ran out of synonyms but hey how good of a job was that bet ya you have absolutely no idea what I was saying! maybe I can write for Bush) That you either get confused during the article and not understand it or you just stop reading because it doesn’t make sense.

The reason why they do this is so you obviously wont understand what your reading and therefore lack an opinion on it. There is a reason why the majority of people go to espn.com over the republican website.

Orwell’s article and especially his five rules at the end were very important to read. This should not only be read and followed by politicians, but writers every were. Because I think were all sick of the needless metaphors and the mutant sized words that we are not going to look up in the dictionary.

They both say media!

If you want to ask what’s the difference between Mainstream Media (everything passive—meaning things you read, hear or watch) as opposed to New Media (things you “interact” with and/or respond to like the internet), my first question to you would be “Please be specific” Because if you’re going to say that New Media gets information out faster and there and offers more ways for people to access that information and news I would have to agree with you.

But what exactly are we looking for from the internet? An escape or alternative to the information put out by profit hungry “traditional media” news and content big boys? Do you really believe that on line sites have no agenda? Drudge, The Smoking Gun, all these guys are totally altruistic have no interest in making money?

Now people can get the real news—just as soon as someone tells is exactly who or what IS the real news! Yes now we can have New Media incorporated into Mainstream Media. Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone are buying up new media properties faster than a Google search! And what this first thing they do? Look for ways to turn these hot new media properties into media entities they UNDERSTAND (aka Old media). It’s like buying a high definition LCD TV to watch I love Lucy and other B&W shows. Yes you can use it for that, but that’s hardly the BEST way to appreciate its potential. O man are those guys screwed! Thank you internet and big Al, you have changed media as we know it. Now people will know the truth—on their terms, on their turf . The news will be the way it should be! (alright I get it the sarcasm is getting annoying but you hopefully get my jist)

O wait lets look back who the New Media giants are, I’ll you hint they are the same ones as… hmmm wait …. Mind block ….. ah yes now I remember. Mainstream Media!

To quote McMchesney “The internet has not spawned a new group of commercially viable media to compete with the existing firms. The power of the oligopolistic market trumps the subversive potential of the technology. …. Or in English; going hyper-commercial” (pg221)

He makes a very valid point, because we say we have blogs , millions of websites and ways to voice or opinion hear others etc… but who else hears them ? If you ask me I don’t think the internet makes a difference at all. How many of these blogs have actually done something more than give someone a chance to blow off some steam?

Why? Well its simple, what’s the first website you go on to check the news? “Mainstream Media” therefore their websites are as big as their radio and television stations—and more profitable. Nobody has enough money to make an independent website as big as theirs and if they do, mainstream media will just buy them up (which is why many do it in the first place).

So this issue will always exist no matter what advancements in technology come about we still know one thing—the golden rule; the one with the gold—makes the rules. (or the news)

tag

this is just funnyhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222022,00.html

Mike Tyson

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20061016-1656-box-tysontour.html
I was on cnn.com the other day and I was looking through news. As an avid sports fan my eye is always looking out for an update or a news brief no matter were I ‘am. But when I saw this update I was rather shocked, disappointed and angered what caused this reaction?

An article about Mike Tyson’s world tour and how he wants to fight a female boxer named Ann Wolfe who he ought weighs by around sixty to seventy pounds. he was quoted saying I'm not 20 years old. I'm not going to smash anybody. I'm not going to talk about smashing anybody's brains. You're not going to see that guy no more.” Truth be told we haven’t seen that mike since he went to jail for rape. but this is not my point.

This day was a Monday in mid October, a Monday in mid October is filled with sports news. The baseball has playoffs, hockey just started and Monday night football is that day. It is very offensive to anyone who follows sports that the only sports headline that cnn.com has is how a washed out boxer willing to fight a girl. Sports in America are a very big thing and people take it seriously. I understand if cnn.com will say they are strictly a news website and don’t write about sports but if your going to put a sports update makes it an update I already know Mike Tyson is insane.