Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

[paracowboy]

Any poll that says something we don't like is automatically poo-pooed as being inaccurate or biased without any supporting evidence.

I pooh-pooh all polls taken or used by the media, since I don't trust them (journalists) to be impartial. They begin a story with an agenda in mind, and utilize whatever they can find to support that agenda. The agenda usually being to sell the story if they are an independent, or to sell advertising and garner better pay, if they are on staff. Since they are looking at things from this perspective, they will also keep a weather-eye out as to the editor's personal stance on any given issue, and cater to those bias in order to sell their story, or get a better by-line.

If you're not challenging the accuracy or methodology of the poll then why do you distrust the results?

I guess I haven't made it clear in previous posts. I distrust ALL polls run by, or published by the media. When I stumble across one by an independent, I believe it. The problem comes in when you realize that, in order to have done the poll, whomever was doing so, was doing it for a reason other than pure curiosity, and must have some sort of stake in the results.

Basically, I'm saying I don't trust polls. Of any kind.

I do trust many Poles, however. By and large a trustworthy, hard-working lot.

 

[Britney Spears]

The problem comes in when you realize that, in order to have done the poll, whomever was doing so, was doing it for a reason other than pure curiosity, and must have some sort of stake in the results.

Uh, is "accurate and useful information" not a reason? How do you think big companies figure out which new products to launch, for example?

Dismissing ALL opinion polls as being biased because the pollsters may have ulterior motives is kind of like saying that since Bush has an ulterior motive for invading Iraq, then nothing he says regarding the Iraq invasion could possibly be the truth, is it not?

So aside from general paranoia, is there some specific aspect of the poll that you find troubling or problematic?  I admit I myself have not yet finished reading the report in its' entirety, so you may very well be right.

 

[George Wallace]

Uh, is "accurate and useful information" not a reason? How do you think big companies figure out which new products to launch, for example?

So.....That is why all my favourite products seem to disappear off the shelves......replaced by crap.....darn if I had only known.  Is that why my favourite Stouffler's dinners have changed recipes and are now made in the US, instead of Canada?

 

[Britney Spears]

Yes. Your only recourse is to spend more money until you become a statistically significant niche market all on your own. That way someone can start a business catering to your needs only, and sell you your favourite products at a 500% markup.

 

[TMM]

I pooh-pooh all polls taken or used by the media, since I don't trust them (journalists) to be impartial. They begin a story with an agenda in mind, and utilize whatever they can find to support that agenda...I guess I haven't made it clear in previous posts. I distrust ALL polls run by, or published by the media. When I stumble across one by an independent, I believe it. The problem comes in when you realize that, in order to have done the poll, whomever was doing so, was doing it for a reason other than pure curiosity, and must have some sort of stake in the results.

Basically, I'm saying I don't trust polls. Of any kind.

The polls are not conducted by the media. I do agree that poll questions can be, and indeed are skewed by wording. However, the statistical polling itself tends to be well sampled.(sorry my sister is a statistican - don't blame me, blame my parents)

That said, I don't trust polls that much because I know that people lie when answering them.

 

[camochick]

My problem with the polls is that the media jumps on them right away. Since this mission began they have been going back and forth on it. Why make such a big deal about it? Especially when we have soldiers over there who have to read this junk. The Canadian public for the most part doesnt know the military or the mission , they only get the hyped up stories about the dead and the injured. Why don't they spend their time and effort on actually educating the public? It will never happen, because to the press the military is only interesting when there is controvery or death and destruction. Funny how those who fought and those who are trying to maintain our right to things like freedom of speech and freedom of the press are treated with such disregard by people whos very lively hood depends on that.

 

[Britney Spears]

That said, I don't trust polls that much because I know that people lie when answering them.

Why? Do you have evidence that a statistically significant number of people lie in a statistically significant portion of polls, given a representative sample of both polls and people? 

It is fair to say that polls themselves can only reflect a very limited amount of information about the real world. That is to say, many polls conducted on September 10th 2001 quickly became irrelevent in the greater scheme of things, even if they were accurate  on the day they were conducted. Aside from that, there's no reason why a well run poll, and whether a poll is well run can be objectively determined, does not accurately prove or disprove a hypothesis. Statistics isn't voodoo, it's one of the cornerstones of the scientific method.

Especially when we have soldiers over there who have to read this junk. The Canadian public for the most part doesnt know the military or the mission , they only get the hyped up stories about the dead and the injured. Why don't they spend their time and effort on actually educating the public?

1) A free press is a cornerstone of a democratic society. That's why I came to Canada. Don't knock it until you've tried the alternative.

2) I think most soldiers are bright enough to evaluate their information with a critical eye and form informed opinions as well as anyone else, and will ontinue to solider on despite the apparent calamity that is this report,  but thanks for the condescending comments, nothing like some patronizing remarks to liven up a ruckmarch through town.

 

[camochick]

I would like to know how my comments are condescending?  I live and work in the civilian world, where I am constantly having to explain things to them about the misconceptions they have regarding the military and this mission (which doesnt bother me in the least). I think the press should be helping to create understanding when it comes to our military.

I never once said the soldiers couldnt form their own opinions on things and really, I have no clue where you got that in my post. I think you're pretty rude for even thinking I would be condescending to soldiers when my husband is over there right now risking his life to serve his country (and all the other great men and women in our forces). Perhaps you should think before you hit the post button.

 

[1feral1]

What about the Vietnam War?

All Canadians support their military involuntarily through heavy taxes. That's all the support the CF needs.

Ya, I know this guy is now banned, but I have to briefly respond.

What?

Really?

What about the home front? Do you not feel that its important for a soldiers morale to know that back home, the majority people are supporting them?

You need to have hope, faith and belief that things are okay back home where its safe and sound.

Summing up I can say, it's your governement, right or wrong in getting involved in an unpopular war, thats your decision and your democratic right (earned by over 100,000 Canadian lives in war in the 20th century) , but either way support the troops.


Wes

 

[Pea]

2) I think most soldiers are bright enough to evaluate their information with a critical eye and form informed opinions as well as anyone else, and will ontinue to solider on despite the apparent calamity that is this report,  but thanks for the condescending comments, nothing like some patronizing remarks to liven up a ruckmarch through town.

The last thing Camochick is, is condescending. She has been nothing but 100% supportive of the Military in general, and the troops in Afghanistan. Her husband is over there now, and she is one heck of an amazing person for being as strong and supportive of the CF when she is going through a lot back home.

 

[aesop081]

Alright Britney Spears,

Time to come off your attude trip and hit hard reality.  I read and re-read Camochicks post and i see nothing condacending.  Maybe you just need to ease off on the trigger.  Her husband is over there so she is not talking out of her ass.  She was stating her opinion on media polls and your reaction was unnecessary.

If you feel the need to be the big man on the forum, try picking on me......Wont bother me one bit to set you straight

 

[Britney Spears]

I would like to know how my comments are condescending?

By calling the article in question "junk" without substantiation, and implying that soldiers deployed should somehow be shielded from possibly unpleasant news/opnions at home, lest their delicate egos be bruised.

If you feel the need to be the big man on the forum, try picking on me......Wont bother me one bit to set you straight

You live in Winnipeg already, friend. I can't think of a worse fate to wish upon anyone.  Pick on you? I should send you a care package filled with touques and mosquito juice.......

 

[camochick]

Well considering you dont even know where aesop lives, I'm going to take your post with a grain of salt. I was not implying that soldiers should be sheilded from the media, no where in my post did I say that. I am just tired of these polls being published when really no one has thought to ask the people if they really know what the mission is all about. I think the media has the responsibity to show all sides of the story but jumping on every little poll that comes out and making it a headliner seems a little silly. To me it seems like they are trying to fuel yet another debate that no one showed up for in the first place.

 

[Britney Spears]

Well considering you dont even know where aesop lives, I'm going to take your post with a grain of salt.

??? Ookay.

I was not implying that soldiers should be sheilded from the media, no where in my post did I say that.

*Shrug* Fine, then I apologize for misunderstanding. In my defence:

Why make such a big deal about it? Especially when we have soldiers over there who have to read this junk.

Pretty clearly implies that in order to shield the delicate sensibilities of our soldiers, the media should practice self censorship.

I am just tired of these polls being published when really no one has thought to ask the people if they really know what the mission is all about.

(Back on topic) Perhaps, but that doesn't invalidate the poll's methodology or it's results. The media is doing exactly the job it's supposed to : Giving me accurate(until paracowboy comes back with a verdict anyway) and timely information in order for me to make an informed decision. If people are too stupid and lazy to research their opinions in depth, then perhaps they are the problem and not the media? I'm the sort of person who believes that most people are smart enough to evaluate their information with a critical eye and a clear head, but that's just my opinion, and hey, what's happened in the US in the last 3 years has basically proven me wrong. 

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

??? Ookay.

*Shrug* Fine, then I apologize for misunderstanding. In my defence:

Pretty clearly implies that in order to shield the delicate sensibilities of our soldiers, the media should practice self censorship.

(Back on topic) Perhaps, but that doesn't invalidate the poll's methodology or it's results. The media is doing exactly the job it's supposed to : Giving me accurate(until paracowboy comes back with a verdict anyway) and timely information in order for me to make an informed decision. If people are too stupid and lazy to research their opinions in depth, then perhaps they are the problem and not the media? I'm the sort of person who believes that most people are smart enough to evaluate their information with a critical eye and a clear head, but that's just my opinion, and hey, what's happened in the US in the last 3 years has basically proven me wrong. 

You know it's always dangerous when a woman shrugs and says "OK Fine."
It usually means "It's not OK and it's not FINE!"
Just a little observations from an old Padre.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Why? Do you have evidence that a statistically significant number of people lie in a statistically significant portion of polls, given a representative sample of both polls and people? 

      The problem is that the press makes a statement that is not supported by the evidence.  Polls of a representative portion of the public, provided they have a broad enough sampling, are reflective of the opinions of the public about the question asked.
      What the press seldom reports, and what the "think tanks" that run many of these polls fail to disclose, is what the actual question asked was.  I received a phonecall for a phone poll during Desert Shield, the question I was asked was how I felt about Canadians taking casualties in the Persian Gulf, did I strongly support Canadian casualties, moderately support Canadian casualties, or oppose Canadians taking casualties in the Persian Gulf.  The poll was later reported as showing Candians opposing the war in the gulf.  That was not the question asked.
    If a poll asking a question of specific wording on January 1st reports 65% support, the same question again on March 1st reporting 50%, and again on May 1st reporting only 45%, then you can safely say that it indicates declining support.  If the three polls asked different questions, then taken together they still only indicate the answer to three specific questions, at three separate dates.  If the questions asked, and the range of responses offered were not identical, and the sampling methods were not the same, then they cannot be used together to track a trend.
    Proper statistics are one of the cornerstones of science.  Sloppy statistics are the cornerstone of yellow journalism and special interest politics.

 

[paracowboy]

whats'a matta, Brits? Second pregnancy making you touchy?

I just don't trust polls or the media. What's the big deal? Like any good Infantryman, when I'm gathering info and I discover that a source is not giving me accurate info, I stop believing him. When he tells me something that is verified by other sources, then it becomes part of the Int picture. Otherwise, it's chaff to sort through. And our media has shown, quite plainly, that they do not give accurate info. So you cross-reference it with othe news sources (my CO has recently gotten me to read The Economist, for instance), the word of people currently on the ground, and any other source you can get hold of. Collect, collate, analyze, rinse and repeat.

As long as you recognize that whomever is telling you something has an agenda, (and everyone does) and you discover what that agenda is, you can then employ the info he's giving you, by placing it in context. Basic patrolling SOPs.

And paranoia? Dude, come on! Everyone in two different BNs know exactly who I am, including my current DCO and CO. I have placed enough clues that my ID is blatantly obvious to anyone with access to either the DIN or CFTPO. Old buddies I haven't spoken with for years have looked me up, recognizing my speech patterns. The only reason I don't use my actual name is because of an issue with two stalker-types - a girl I knew (briefly) before my marriage, and some kid who wants to use my online identity for some oddball reason. Any number of members here know my real name, and I've never been shy about telling folks who I am via pm, once I know they won't put it on the open boards.

Aren't you the one who has said that he fears reprisals from fellow CF members if he reveals his real name?

 

[Britney Spears]

I just don't trust polls or the media. What's the big deal? Like any good Infantryman, when I'm gathering info and I discover that a source is not giving me accurate info, I stop believing him. When he tells me something that is verified by other sources, then it becomes part of the Int picture. Otherwise, it's chaff to sort through. And our media has shown, quite plainly, that they do not give accurate info. So you cross-reference it with othe news sources (my CO has recently gotten me to read The Economist, for instance), the word of people currently on the ground, and any other source you can get hold of. Collect, collate, analyze, rinse and repeat.

As long as you recognize that whomever is telling you something has an agenda, (and everyone does) and you discover what that agenda is, you can then employ the info he's giving you, by placing it in context. Basic patrolling SOPs.

Hey, as long as you're referring to healthy skepticism and not a blind comitment to ignorance, we're on the same page. You sure had me fooled when you asked a string of questions about polling and then didn't bother to look for any of the answers that were easily found. I guess I just got the impression you didn't want to find out.

And paranoia? Dude, come on! Everyone in two different BNs know exactly who I am, including my current DCO and CO. I have placed enough clues that my ID is blatantly obvious to anyone with access to either the DIN or CFTPO. Old buddies I haven't spoken with for years have looked me up, recognizing my speech patterns. The only reason I don't use my actual name is because of an issue with two stalker-types - a girl I knew (briefly) before my marriage, and some kid who wants to use my online identity for some oddball reason. Any number of members here know my real name, and I've never been shy about telling folks who I am via pm, once I know they won't put it on the open boards.

I was referring to your seemingly irrational fear of "the media". No one said anything about your real name or identity. That's your business, as mine is mine.

 

[MarkOttawa]

camochick:

Why don't they spend their time and effort on actually educating the public? It will never happen, because to the press the military is only interesting when there is controvery or death and destruction.

This story was not reported in our media--I wonder why:

"Britain takes over NATO's Afghan force"
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=667782006&source=somnia

Excerpts:

'Britain took command of NATO's Afghan peacekeeping force on Thursday as a tide of violence raised apprehension about the alliance's planned takeover of security duties across the country from U.S. forces...

"We aim to extend and deepen the areas in which the government of Afghanistan and the wider international community can safely and coherently operate in the interests of the people," the new British commander, Lieutenant General David Richards, said in a speech at a change-of-command ceremony...

ISAF now has about 9,000 troops in the relatively peaceful capital, the north and west.

Under its so-called phase three expansion, it will take over command of about 7,000 British, Canadian and Dutch troops who are moving into the south. The target date for that is July 31.

The expansion will take the numbers of foreign soldiers in Afghanistan to about 32,500 by July and August, the highest level since the Taliban were ousted.

The last phase of the expansion will see NATO taking command of U.S. forces now operating in the east, where Islamist insurgents are also active. No date has been set but it is expected late this year or early next.

NATO's move south should help the United States, stretched by the Iraq war, cut its troops in Afghanistan from 19,000 to 16,500 by around August...'

Note that a British general will be commanding US forces.

Mark
Ottawa

Exactly

 

[George Wallace]

NATO's move south should help the United States, stretched by the Iraq war, cut its troops in Afghanistan from 19,000 to 16,500 by around August...'

Note that a British general will be commanding US forces.

Mark
Ottawa

Exactly

I didn't read it the same way.

The NATO force will focus on improving security so the government and international community can begin to develop the economy, while a separate U.S. force will remain in charge of a counter-terrorist mission.