Before I start this rant, let me say that I appreciate the fact that the New London Day is one of the best, if not the best, newspapers in the state, even now that Ted Mann is gone. But that, unfortunately proves only how low the profession has sunk. In this morning’s paper, a “poll” was reported, giving responses to the following question:
Would you support Michael Buscetto III as a write-in candidate for New London mayor?
There is no direct link to what turns out to be an Internet poll, which I found embedded on the Region section on-line.
I have my opinions on Buscetto, who is mounting an independent bid for mayor after losing the Democratic primary, but they’re irrelevant to this post. What I found amazing about the fact that this was reported in the print edition was that there was no caveat whatsoever to the effect that the poll has no scientific validity whatsoever. It was reported as a poll. Is the Day unaware that readers go to their newspapers for facts, and when a paper reports poll results their is an implied representation that the results being reflect some meaningful reality? There is no way that a poll that anyone can answer, as many times as they like, tells us anything about the actual state of things in New London. It is possible that a scientifically conducted poll would reach results similar to those published in the Day, but if it did one could only chalk it up to coincidence. If such a poll were conducted, I, being a resident of Groton, would not be among those polled, yet I cast a vote on-line without a problem. The Day is certainly free to conduct meaningless on-line polls, if that’s what it takes to up its hit count, but it has an obligation to disclose that the results are meaningless.
Post a Comment