Skip to main content

Our survey said...

Every day we are bombarded with the results of surveys. Many of these are now a rather odd breed of survey, where an organization will sponsor a survey company to produce results for a story they want to push. It's a form of editorial advertising.

The survey companies make no bones about this. If you look, for instance, at the website of OnePoll, they proclaim that they are 'survey-led news specialists.' The cutting from the Daily Mail above is a good example of their output. A survey for the National Trust was used to support the idea that children should spend more time out with their families. At National Trust sites, say. A worthy enough cause, but it is still very much manufactured news (The OnePoll sites has cuttings from the Mail, the Star and the Telegraph picking up on this story.)

But, leaving aside the doubtfulness of generating 'news' this way, do the surveys really tell us anything? How careful are they about demographic? These are online surveys, where the participants are paid to take part. How many truly make an effort to consider the questions? I suspect surveys with one or two questions will mostly get sensible answers, but surveys with 20 questions could easily result in random selection. And, of course, those who are likely to fill in surveys online tend to be an atypical slice of the population.

I've nothing against the survey companies. They're making a living. But I'm slightly more concerned that an organization like the National Trust should be taking this approach - and particularly worried that our newspapers are prepared to take this sort of thing as gospel. (No prizes for guessing which papers tend to rely most on iffy surveys.) One more reason, I suspect, for regarding newspapers purely as a form of entertainment, not as a way of gathering information.

Comments

  1. Good point.

    To be honest, I've noticed that the older I get, the less I believe - and also the less sure I am that there are any certainties or it's possible to truly know anything much at all. I live in a kind of permanent intellectual soup.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...