April 26, 2013

That TV3 poll on racism? Bogus!

The Herald today ran this story claiming that people think New Zealand is a racist country, based on the results of a survey run  for TV3’s new show The Vote. Viewers voted through Facebook, Twitter, The Vote website or by text.

I haven’t watched The Vote, but I would like to know whether its journalist presenters, presumably fans of accuracy, point out that such self-selecting  polls are unscientific – the polite term for bogus. The best thing you can say is that such polls allow viewers to  feel involved.

But that’s not a good thing if claims made as a  result of these polls lead to way off-beam impressions being planted in the public consciousness; that’s often the way urban myths are born and prejudice stoked.

I’m not saying that racism doesn’t exist in New Zealand, but polls like this  offer no insight into the issue or, worse, distort the truth.

It’s disappointing to see the Herald, which still, presumably, places a premium on accuracy, has swallowed The Vote press release whole, without  pointing out its shortcomings or doing its homework to see what reliable surveys exist. TV3 must be very pleased with the free publicity, though.

avatar

Atakohu Middleton is an Auckland journalist with a keen interest in the way the media uses/abuses data. She happens to be married to a statistician. See all posts by Atakohu Middleton »

Comments

  • avatar
    Margaret

    The other thing I find difficult is interpreting what racism people where thinking of when sayingNZ is racist.

    It may be that some were thinking about racism against various ethnic minorities, but it is also possible that people were thinking about the various ethnic preference policies and how racist they are against Pakeha.

    11 years ago

  • avatar
    Julie Middleton

    I agree, Margaret: I also thought the proposition was too vaguely worded for a yes/no vote, though was probably fine for a wide-ranging debate. Interesting to see in another part of today’s Herald (The Business, p. 6) that RadioLive broadcaster Willie Jackson says that he declined an invitation to be part of the show because the proposition being debated wasn’t subtle enough.

    11 years ago

  • avatar
    Amelia W

    The other issue I had with it was that the voting for the public was taken throughout the show, whereas for their live audience, they did a before and after comparison, which showed a good number actually changed their minds and said NZ was not racist.

    11 years ago

    • avatar
      Julie Middleton

      Meanwhile, over on the Kiwi Journalists’ Association Facebook page, former Herald editor-in-chief Gavin Ellis has quite sensibly suggested that we need another word to define unscientific (bogus) polls. Wits have suggested a cower-poll, a faux poll, poll tacks or a slur-vey. On the serious side, it’s a good idea. How about unscientific snapshot? Or vox pop (from vox populi) which is what journalists call those man-in-the-street Q and As? No one expects those to be the last word on anything, which is the attitude we need to cultivate to bogus polls …

      11 years ago

  • avatar

    Also useful to see that the studio audience had the *opposite* voting result than the public vote — a clear illustration of the problems of biased samples.

    I don’t think that the term “unscientific snapshot” gives a strong enough message: some may think it merely means it wasn’t done by a scientist but would “trust” the results just as much as a scientific one.

    11 years ago