What Pollsters Ask vs. What Respondents Hear

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Do people really care about all the nano-controversies that constantly bubble up out of the politico-quantum vacuum and then disappear just as quickly? Dave Weigel points to the following poll question as evidence about the number of people who have an opinion about Obama’s “hot mic” incident:

That’s impressive! Apparently 96% of America has an opinion about this. The problem is that although the question above is the one that was presented to people, here’s what I think they mostly heard:

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah President Obama blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Troubling or Not?

So if you’re not an Obamanaut, you find his conduct troubling — whatever it is. But if you’re a fan, it’s no big deal. I suspect this dynamic accounts for the routinely implausible number of people in polls who claim to have heard of, or care about, some particular incident that we all know perfectly well most people know nothing about. Ditto for obscure policy issues. Everyone wants to have an opinion, even if they have no idea what they’re supposed to have an opinion about.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest