Industry Shill Pollling Coming Out on Net Neutrality

I've got my hands on some poor quality polling done by the Glover Park Group and Public Opinion Strategies on net neutrality.  It's being passed around on the Hill by the telecom shills.

Here's a sample question:

Which is Most Important to You?

Which of the following two items do you think is the most important to you:  

Delivering the benefits of new TV and video choice so consumers will see increased competition and lower prices for cable TV


Enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee

The rest of the questionnaire is similarly structured along the lines of 'do you want lots and lots of pie or would you like a kidney infection'.

I did find one piece of data interesting, assuming that this poll is worth anything at all (which it's not).  According to this data, 7% of registered voters have heard about the fight over net neutrality in Congress.  That's amazing, since there's been basically no reporting done on the topic.  It's also probably not true, since this is worth less than a random set of monkey scratches.  Also Verizon paid $60,000 for this.

Tags: Mike McCurry, net neutrality, Ted Stevens (all tags)



Pie or kidney infection, indeed.

Somebody must have had fun writing that survey question, which happens to be the last one in the survey and will probably be the one most widely hyped, if they can get away with it.  Let's hope no journalist will cite the results for that question and that any who do will at least quote the exact language and note how "loaded" it is.  

If anyone sees references to this study in the media--especially anything that buys into the deceptive conclusion--please post something about it or send Matt an email so he can and we can respond with emails to the journalist responsible.  It deserves no credibility and we should do what we can to make sure it doesn't get any.  It would be nice if Matt's post was enough.

by mitchipd 2006-09-18 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Industry Shill Pollling Coming Out on Net Neut

Is it just me, or is it amazing that 17% of respondents chose kidney infection?  Even assuming that all 7% of respondents who'd heard of net neutrality understood that the question was loaded, that means 10% of respondents didn't know the definition of "barring."

by dtmky 2006-09-18 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Industry Shill Pollling Coming Out on Net Neut

I actually made that joke today with a friend on the phone.

by Matt Stoller 2006-09-18 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Industry Shill Pollling

I make up polls like that sometimes when I do a diary. But I do it as a joke and don't pass it off as real the way Verizon has.

by Sitkah 2006-09-18 03:29PM | 0 recs

How do you know this is a Verizon sponsored "poll"?

by SweetLola98 2006-09-18 05:36PM | 0 recs
The "real" sample size

This is a survey of 800 registered voters. Only 56 people were able to generous question:

"As best as you can say, have you read, seen or heard anything recently about a debate occurring in Congress over the concept of ʺnet neutralityʺ or not?"

in the affirmative.

This means only 56 people were answering these questions based upon any knowledge or understanding of the issues behind the slanted questions.

by PBCliberal 2006-09-19 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Industry Shill Pollling Coming Out on Net Neut

Matt, I'd like to hear you on the subject of Google's support for Heather Wilson vs. Patricia Madrid? Despite their support for net neutrality, they've hired Republicans to give money to Republicans. I thought Google was trying not to be evil.

More on this in the SF Chronicle.

by LookMaNoHands 2006-09-19 09:20AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads