Should there be a watchdog sensoring misleading usage of statistics in the Media?

Question

if I ask 3 people a question and they all say yes, I could report "100% of respondents agreed" - this would be totally misleading - however there is no system that I know of to sensor this either prior to airing/printing or after the fact in the form of heafty fines and imposing retractions. I think this should be done as a matter of urgency, and can be done fairly and in the interest of the public- basically a watchdog would have as it's mandate to make sure that the media alway provide the appropriate context from statistics - eg in my example there would be an obligation for the media to state "the respondents represents 0.000001% of the population" or something like that. Media self regulation obviously doesn't work.

Answer 1

Yes I do or at least the actual raw data with it. For example...the jump of flag desicration (sp) from 2004 to 2005 was 33 %. they forgot to mention that there were 3 reported cases of flag desicration (sp) in 2004, 4 in 2005.

Answer 2

Most studies, when published, include a margin of error. However, in sensationalized news stories and editorials based on the results, many "journalists" do not include the margin of error. Also,while polling tries to be scientific, you can't interview everyone in America. Different methods of gathering information can provide different results.
I don't think there would be any more accurate way for the watchdog organization to get the information either. Also, where do you draw the line? It's dangerous to have any organization that censors materials. What if the watchdog group develops an agenda of its own and starts censoring unfavorable statistics whether or not they are accurate?
So, I don't think it would be good to have a watchdog with very much authority, but I definitely applaud groups that fact-check statistics when they can. The groups should be able to publish their own findings and say that the previous statistics were misleadinbg, but they shouldn't be able to censor other people's use of statistics.

Answer 3

With scientific studies they write up findings in reports so that others can check their results and possibly draw other conclusions. The media on the other hand closely guard their full results due to the fact that if anyone saw who they were actually polling it would be blatantly obvious of just how corrupt they are. News polling is the equivalent to scientific researchers doing research to find out if watching TV is hazardous to your health by studying people that have less than 24 hours to live.
That doesn’t answer your question though. Personally I think that since the media seems to be all for more watchdog groups on everybody else, then the media and their friends in the rest of the liberal community should get their fair share of watchdog groups that serve no point except to make things as near impossible to accomplish as possible.

Answer 4

The establishment of such a watchdog group with the power to censor the media would be a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Too many people have fought and made the ultimate sacrifice of their lives defending the freedoms guaranteed all Americans by the Constitution for any reasonable person, particularly a loyal American, to tolerate the establishment of such a "watchdog" group.

Most people do not like the news. The simple fact is the world is in pretty dismal condition. However, how can it ever be reasonable to shoot the messenger just for bringing bad news?

Some argue that the news is hyper-sensational "always" going for the ugliest stories possible. One may not realize it, but if you want to stop this kind of news, what you are really proposing is the end of capitalism in our nation. Media is, by definition, corporate media. Corporations exist to make profit. The only way they can profit is by getting you, the consumer, to watch their news and the ads that go with it rather than somebody else's news. Big, screaming stories, as horrible as they are, get peoples' attention. And to keep you, the consumer, from getting bored, in-depth coverage of any particular event or issue is limited: the result is viewers receive a neverending stream of headlines and soundbites without ever getting to the heart of any particular item. The best you can hope to do to change the situation is to organize and to complain to the corporate owners of the various media outlets. Otherwise, if you want in-depth coverage of the day's events, get your radio and listen to NPR.

Myself, I prefer alternet.org as it presents the news that no one in mainstream media is covering.

Answer 5

Well most polls do state at the end:Poll is in no way scientific and can not be representative of all people.
But you're right...If you go to the beach in San Diego and ask is water pollution important to you... of course you'll get 100% yes; rather than going to Idaho and asking about water pollution; I don't know what the figure would be (obviously) but they have their own priorities. BUT then I turn to the question, why do we need so many freaking stats. REALLY? Why do we have the need to consume all this statistical data? Is it because we can't really think for ourselves? I mean really is water pollution less a threat if the guy in Idaho doesn't respond properly? I'm not picking on Idaho btw, love your potaotes! I was using a land massed state.

Answer 6

Mark Twain once attributed this statement to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881):

"There are three kinds of falsehoods: Lies, Damnable Lies and Statistics."

Staistics are a part of life, from economic forecasts, and scientific studies, to Major League Baseball All-Star balloting. Like most things, especially assertions by news organizations or politicians, the critical thing is to CONSIDER THE SOURCE.

There are many reputable sources: academic (accedited universities) and major news organizations. Unfortunately, many with political and economic agendas cherry-pick facts as it suits them, to bolster their case for conslusions they've already reached. Those are the ones to be wary of and avoid, if possible.

Answer 7

Of course there should be some kind of censoring since so many people believe everything they read, and allow the Medea to influence their decision making and control their lives.

Answer 8

Undoubtedly!!! They exagerate a million times a day!

Answer 9

yES.