… strangely biased against Conservatives and Prime Minister Harper? In a leading newspaper, the liberal Globe and Mail? Well when that happens, I… yawn. Because that happens approximately every single day.
Nevertheless, while the folks at Compas will be too polite to say so, it seems obvious to me that they caught a liberal-biased polling firm being biased for their liberal media masters. I could be wrong. 99% of me doesn’t think so though, based on this “it happens every single day” theory of mine.
Did polling firm Stategic Council manipulate their poll to create a predetermined, desired result favorable to liberals, and did the Globe and Mail who commissioned the poll report on it in their usual anti-conservative, anti-Harper way as if it were a true, fair, properly-done poll? Well, “it happens every single day,” so yeah, probably.
But as was alluded to yesterday at this site, in a slightly unusual twist, it seems a well-known Canadian polling company was contracted to do a study on Canadian attitudes—the twist this time being that they include in that study just how it was that another well-known polling firm got it so terribly wrong.
Polling firm Compas was hired by the good Western Standard magazine to conduct the study. The seemingly biased poll (it happens every single day) that was under scrutiny was one released two weeks ago by the liberal Globe and Mail. The polling firm in question was Strategic Council, a polling firm that works under contract for the Globe and Mail and its corporate and political brother, the liberal CTV.
Strategic Council is the official pollster for those media organizations. But I highly suspect nearly all Canadian polling firms as being nothing short of shills for liberals, and that they conduct their polling with a liberal, anti-conservative, anti-American, anti-Bush world view.
But here’s what happens when you ask the right questions: a vivid and formerly un-Canadian conclusion on the cover of their official report:
That almost sounds like the title of a blog entry written by me, which as I said, just happens when you ask the right questions. And of course as we here all know, well, that ain’t liberal.
The whole ten-page Compas report is available here in PDF form. Here are most of the highlights:
The Origin of the Project
“On August 1, the Globe and Mail published an unusual poll on Canadians’ attitudes towards the federal government’s policies on the Hezbollah-Israel war. It was not up to the standards of the paper’s heritage nor that of its pollster.
I asked if the paper would consider carrying a short essay explaining the poll’s limitations. But an editor’s response was that it wasn’t ‘in the market’ for a second opinion. When the Western Standard asked if COMPAS would replicate the study to show how it was misleading, we were pleased to accept the invitation.”
Conrad Winn Ph.D. President
… The Globe reportage carried so much negative news for the Prime Minister and Israel and so much good news for Hizbollah that a foreign reader of the paper might be excused for concluding that Canadians have somehow come to embrace Hizbollah.
…To find out how Canadians truly feel about Hisbollah, the COMPAS/Western Standard poll asked respondents if they favoured or opposed treating the organization as terrorist under Canadian law. Canadians favour treating Hizbollah as terrorist by a factor of 5:1 (2:1 in Quebec).
The 69% who favour continued treatment of Hizbollah as a terrorist organization were asked if they favour making it illegal to support the organization in Canada. Seventy-two percent said yes. Thus, about half of Canadians (0.69 X 0.72 = 0.5) favour making illegal mere support for Hizbollah (see tables at the bottom of the list of tables, below).
Asking people what they think of Hizbollah in Canada sheds light on how Canadians truly feel about the Harper government’s Mid-East stance. Half of Canadians would criminalize simple support for Hizbollah. This fact adds to the implausibility of The Globe’s portrait of a Canadian public hostile to Harper because of his verbal preference for Israel over Hizbollah.
…What We Found—Harper Was Justified According to Large Majorities
Overwhelming majorities, unequivocal even in Quebec, believe that the federal government under Harper was justified in saying that Israel has a right to defend itself, Iran was wrong to arm Hizbollah and call for Israel’s destruction, and Syria was wrong to arm Hizbollah (see tables, below).
…Where The Globe Erred—It Asked Only One Question, and Wording Was Poor
The Globe erred in providing only one policy position for respondents to evaluate instead of several. The paper erred in asking only about Israeli “actions” and doing so without providing a clear meaning.
“Actions” is a slightly negative word that presupposes criticism. “Policy” is a neutral word. “Actions” are also potentially vague. If “actions” are interpreted by respondents in The Globe survey as signifying airstrikes and bombing, the amazing finding is not that only 32% back government support for such actions but that as many as 32% do back the government.
In democracies, publics rarely see any justification in killing. The vast majority of Canadians who would disapprove of Israeli military action would simultaneously approve of the Israeli right of self-defence, a fact that could not come out in The Globe poll because the question was not asked.
What We Found—Admiration for George Bush Dwarfed by Concern about Arab terrorism, Desire to Protect U.S. Market Access, and Belief in Israel’s Right of Self-Defence
The Western Standard poll shows that Canadians believe that the federal government’s position on the conflict is motivated above all by
—concern about Arab extremism and terrorism—28% (Arab extremism 12%, Hizbollah is terrorist, 12%, Syria as a problem 4%);
—protecting access to U.S. markets for our exports—21%;
—a belief in Israel’s right to defend itself—19%;
—respect for Bush as a role model—12%.
The Western Standard and Globe polls could not be more different. If The Globe’s poll is right and if The Globe’s interpretation is well founded, most Canadians think that Ottawa’s policies were driven only by a desire to emulate Bush. Our poll shows that only 12% of Canadians believe that the Canadian government’s policy is motivated Harper’s admiration for Bush.
Where The Globe Erred—Too Few Response Options and Poor
WordingThe Globe erred in providing too few response options, two of which were unlikely to be chosen. In an era of cynicism about politicians, it is unreasonable to expect many respondents to say that politicians, even those they respect, are motivated “out of principle.” “Out of principle” is one of the three response options provided to respondents in The Globe poll for explaining the federal government’s policy on the MidEast.
Respondents are also unlikely to select a second response option, “domestic political considerations.” The language of the question is too hifalutin for many respondents to understand. Even for respondents with a Ph.D. in political science, its meaning is unclear. The response option could mean accommodating U.S. foreign policy for countless possible reasons, including
—in order to satisfy Canadians’ desire to sell goods into the U.S. market,
—because Canadian voters see the worlds through the same prism as American voters,
—because Conservative voters insist on this approach, or
—in order to win over potential new Conservative voters. The phrase is unclear.
The third option is easy to understand, and is widely embraced. Half of The Globe respondents opted for the “in line with U.S. President George W. Bush” option. This is more than four times the number of Western Standard respondents saying that Ottawa’s policy is explained by a desire to follow Bush as a “role model.” In The Globe survey, 53% explained Canada’s policy in terms of the Conservative government’s wanting to be “in line with U.S. President W. Bush.” By contrast, in the Western Standard survey only 11% explained Canada’s policy in terms of the Conservative government’s seeing the Bush administration as a “role model.” One may wonder if the immense number of Globe respondents opting for the “in line” option is because they didn’t understand or didn’t like the only other two answers offered in The Globe study.
These are but a couple of the charts showing the comparative questions and answers conducted — one done right, the other done wrong.
Of course most of the other polling firms, which as I said I suspect are all shills for liberals, “disagree” with the Compas results. They all rushed to put their positive spin on the Strategic Council results and negative spin on the Compas results. I find that in itself amusing and very telling.
The Compas results “are considered accurate” to within 4.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The Strategic Counsel’s findings “are considered accurate” to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. So what’s that about? Pure bunk?
UPDATE: Reader MadMacs of Bytown supplied us with an excellent interview with Conrad Winn Ph.D. President of Compas from radio station CFRA this morning:
CFRA’s Mark Sutcliffe interviews Conrad Winn on his Compas Research poll (in 3 parts, unfortunately)
http://tinyurl.com/pfxz9
http://tinyurl.com/jhe89
http://tinyurl.com/f767x
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Proud To Be Canadian. But Maybe Not. - Tuesday December 17, 2024 at 2:07 pm
- Say something. - Friday October 25, 2024 at 6:03 pm
- Keep going, or veer right - Monday August 26, 2024 at 4:30 pm
