A 10-minute power outage starting just before 5:30 a.m. left us sitting around in the dark and delayed today’s entry a bit. But power was restored quickly, which often isn’t the case out here in Kaaawa, so we’re thankful.
The decision on whether the Superferry will be allowed to sail while completing an environmental assessment is due out today, and members of the House have been advised that there may be a 5-day special session later this month.
Larry Geller’s post yesterday (www.DisappearedNews.com) should be required reading for legislators so that they can better interpret the results of the several different polls.
Regarding the Star-Bulletin’s poll, Larry started by noting:
The first question is, Do you think an environmental assessment should be done on the Superferry?
There are a couple of problems with this. First, the question does not indicate that the environmental assessment is required by state and federal law. The question doesn’t explain that a judge has determined an EA is necessary. This leads respondents to think it is optional, and that they can choose freely. The law is already well established, so the question is misleading. This is a common way of skewing a survey—give people a false choice.
He goes on to make a number of quite astute observations on the subtle and not-so-subtle distortions that can be introduced through the wording of questions and presentation of results.
Thanks, Larry.
Speaking of polls, this complaint from Kona alleges corporate hanky-panky to stack the results of a KGMB poll on the Superferry.
NO FAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ve just got word that the pro HSF people are doing multiple voting by
going back to the page and clearing their cache (Tools, internet options,
delete). One of them posted it on The Advertiser Forum.KGMB….WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS????????????????
NO FAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And thanks to the Supreme Court of Hawaii Blog for calling my attention to the Hawaii Land Use Law blog. I haven’t read enough to decide if it has a particular slant, but it does flag issues as they appear and appears to be a useful resource.
Noted: The “Being Married is Hard to do” blog noted here a couple of days ago for its eye-popping level of sharing has apparently become the victim of the sudden public attention and has been deleted from the Blogspot.com server. I suppose that’s not a totally surprising outcome. Hopefully it hasn’t led to damaging blowback against it’s obviously talented author. But remember–blogging can be a dangerous pastime. You may not want to try this at home.
For future reference: HoaxBusters and the Urban Legends Reference Pages.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I imagine when her site count jumped dramatically,she got paranoid about being outed. Public diaries are a bit much.
While I agree with Larry’s point that tilting pie graphs is never a good idea, I completely disagree that the question about whether an environmental assessment should be required is unfair or misleading. The question of whether one thinks an EA should be required given the ultimate outcome of a long legal process is a different question than whether one thinks an EA should be required regardless of what anybody else, including the courts, thinks about it.
And just because the question allows people to disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t make it a “false choice.” A false choice is asking, for instance, “do you prefer red or do you prefer blue?” It’s a false choice because it does not present all the options.
Larry also complains that the poll obscures county results by aggregating them all together. But the online edition breaks out the results by county and I’ve found it very useful – bearing in mind all the inherent limitations of surveys (question wording, etc) – in getting a better understanding of how opinion in my county shakes out.
Readers did not get the on-line breakdown, and the Star-Bulletin’s screaming headline, Ferry rides tide of favor, visible from newspaper boxes even to those who didn’t buy the paper, did more than just suggest a conclusion, it tried to burn it into our retinas. And it’s a conclusion that can be reached only by including large numbers of uninvolved Oahu respondents. The graphic (pie charts on an arrow) also suggested that the data supported that headline, which again only works with Oahu responses swamping everyone directly concerned.
Update: The “wandering wife” was congratulated on the Hawaii Supreme Court blog Monday for passing the bar exam. I think she realized just how small this island really is 🙂
I didn’t read the poll article. I went right to the online questions and results. I have no trouble believing the paper might have skewed or otherwise botched the interpretation, whether intentionally or out of ignorance. It’s certainly always possible for someone to misrepresent or overstate or twist survey results to fit with their agenda. I agree with Larry that that is something we should always beware of.
However, speaking as someone with no strong opinions one way or the other on any aspect of the Superferry controversy, looking at the survey instrument itself – the poll questions, how they are worded, the possible answers, how it breaks out by county, etc. – I don’t see anything particularly prejudicial or unfair. I think the raw results are useful and not overly tainted.
I loved the writings of the Wandering Wife, but there definitely was a little too much in the way of personally identifying information for it to remain anonymous.
I hope she’ll return to blogging in some form, ideally under her own name, so she can get credit for her brilliance. Or insanity. Or both.
Glad I saved a copy of her site!