Wordblog

Opinion polls have long given newspapers good news stories. Yet I have had an increasing sense that they were being overdone, a cheap way of getting what look like strong factual tales into the pages.

Going through a paper the third poll-based story is wearisome and irritation that they can’t get out and do their own reporting kicks in.

Last week alone according to, Siobhain Butterowrth, the readers’ editor of the Guardian,  more than 20 of the paper’s articles mentioned polls. Her topic is a report of a survey state state school teachers (correction) which had this intro:

More than a quarter of science teachers in state schools believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons, according to a national poll of primary and secondary teachers.

To be accurate it needed the insertion of something like “an unrepresentative sample” after “quarter of”. That, of course, would have killed the story stone dead.

The pressure on reporters is always to come up with the strongest angle and that pressure can continue after filing when the question: “Can we say…?” is asked.

The science teachers story could have been made safe by writing it along these line:

More than a quarter of secondary and primary state school science teachers, questioned for a national poll, believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons.

Then the sample could have been qualified further down the story. It would then have been accurate is not honest reporting. The sexing up of polls as well as outright inaccuracy is always a  danger in a competitive newsroom especially when polls have become a substantial part of the news content.

Later: I should have pointed out that the IPSOS/Mori press release was as misleading as the Guardian report unless you are one of those people who read the footnotes (which journalists handling polls should do). It falls into my “accurate but dishonest” category.

Neither does Ipsos/MORI reveal who is paying for the survey other than that it is multi-client.  The British Polling Council offers this advice to journalists under the heading of “Who paid for the poll and why was it done?”:

If it was conducted for a respected media outlet, or for independent researchers, there is a good chance it was conducted impartially. If it was conducted for a partisan client, such as a company, pressure group or political party, it might still be a good survey (although readers/listeners/viewers should be told who the client was). The validity of the poll depends on whether it was conducted by a reputable company, whether it asked impartial questions, and whether full information about the questions asked and results obtained are provided. If such information is provided, then the quality of the survey stands or fall according to its intrinsic merits. If such information is not provided, then the poll should be treated with caution. In either event, watch out for loaded questions and selective findings, designed to bolster the view of the client, rather than report public opinion fully and objectively.

In other words, this poll from one of the leading polling companies should have been “treated with caution”  according to the trade body of which Ipsos/Mori is a member.