While looking at tonight’s tv listings on yahoo, I came across a “web poll” which I think is an excellent example of a much larger phenomenon.
The question for the poll was “What do you make of this Bill O’Reilly brouhaha?” The available choices are:
- It’s all hogwash, he’s innocent! The Factor is precious!
- I remain undecided
- It’s not hard to believe, the way he harasses his guests.
- I am trying to avoid thinking about it.
At this viewing, 2012 votes have been tallied. In the lead is the “not hard to believe” option, followed by the first one. 2 and 4 are about tied. I realize this is just a stupid internet poll that doesn’t really mean anything or count for anything, but I think it reveals a lot.
First of all, it’s important in cases like this to see which item is listed first. Here, the “innocent” option is listed first. Whatever item is listed first necessarily frames the rest of them. It also conveys the most points of information in it, with essentially three separate sentences. Two of these are emotionally charged (”hogwash” and “precious”) and two exclamation points are used.
The second and the fourth options are virtually the same, but with a different focus. The “I remain undecided” option implies that a decision will be reached at some point, but you’re currently unsure. Suggesting that you’d rather “not think about it” also expresses an uncertainty, but one which lacks a component actively seeking an outcome. You will probably ignore the issue until it’s decided for you.
The third option is the only one which allows you to express negative sentiment. But it’s interesting how it only let’s you do it a sort of softened backdoor way. It says that it’s “not hard to believe” instead of just giving you the option to believe it directly. Also, it stipulates a condition for it’s being “not hard to believe”: his behavior on the show as evidence. I’ve never seen his show, but I’m sure he doesn’t regularly sexually harrass guests right on his show.
In order for me to successfully answer this question, there would have to be a fifth option which says something like, “That guy seems like a piece of shit and whether it’s true or not, I hope he gets taken out.” Of course, if this were an “official” poll of some sort and I told them that was my answer, they would most likely classify me as “undecided”, which isn’t really representative of what I think at all.
This sort of structure doesn’t just occur in simple web polls on yahoo. My brother recently got a phone call from some political polling organization, asking him whether he would be voting for Bush or Kerry. When he said “neither” the woman said, “So you’re undecided then.” And he had to tell her, “No, third party candidate.” She didn’t even give him the option.
That example makes me wonder about officially done statistics and polls. I mean, I already believe that you can make a poll say pretty much anything you want if you design it correctly and deliver it to a pre-screened audience. But now I realize that perhaps a number of those people who are labelled “undecided” have actually just decided in a way that the poll cannot account for: either third party candidates, or else abstaining altogether.
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
