Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:32:14.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Follow the Pollsters: Inaccuracies in Media Coverage of the Horse-race during the 2008 Canadian Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2013

François Pétry  and
Frédérick Bastien
François Pétry*
Affiliation:
Université Laval
Frédérick Bastien*
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
*
François Pétry, Département de science politique, Université Laval, Cité Universitaire, Québec QC, G1K 7P4. Email: [email protected]
Frédérick Bastien, Département de science politique, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal QC, H3C 3J7.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. We identify frequent inaccuracies in journalistic interpretations of the horse race (“who is ahead?”) and of change over time (“who is gaining?”) in poll reports during the Canadian election of 2008. We test two explanations. The “mistaken mindset” hypothesis holds that journalists exaggerate the horse race because they systematically miscalculate the margin of error. The “follow-the-pollster” hypothesis holds that journalists follow the horse-race interpretations that they find in pollsters' reports. We find strong support for the “follow-the-pollster” hypothesis in the data and in interviews with pollsters and journalists and conclude that pollsters' reports should be a key element to consider in any attempt to improve the level of accuracy in media reports of the horse race.

Résumé. Les journalistes ont souvent commis des erreurs d'interprétation de la marge d'erreur dans les résultats de sondages pendant la campagne électorale canadienne de 2008. Cela les a conduits à surestimer l'avance du parti gagnant et le changement dans le score d'un parti entre deux sondages successifs. Comment expliquer ces erreurs fréquentes? Une première hypothèse affirme que cette surestimation provient du fait que les journalistes se trompent systématiquement dans le calcul de la marge d'erreur. Selon une deuxième hypothèse, les journalistes connaissent tellement mal la marge d'erreur qu'ils se fient à l'interprétation qu'en font les maisons de sondage. Les données empiriques et les réponses aux questions d'entretiens soutiennent la deuxième hypothèse. Nous en concluons que pour mieux porter fruits, les efforts pour améliorer l'interprétation de la marge d'erreur devraient cibler les maisons de sondage autant que les journalistes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, R. 2000. “Reporting Public Opinion Polls: The Media and the 1997 Canadian Election.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12(3): 285–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastien, F. and Pétry, F.. 2010. Sondages et média ne font pas toujours bon ménage: leçons de la campagne fédérale de 2008. http://www.fpjq.org/index (December 21, 2011).Google Scholar
Buzzetti, H. 2008. “2008, comme si on était en 1984.” Le Devoir, September 19, A3.Google Scholar
Clark, C. 2008. “Liberals gaining on Tories in Ontario but Likely to Lose Seats.” The Globe and Mail, October 8, A9.Google Scholar
Durand, C., Vachon, P. and Tanguay, D.. 1998. “La méthodologie des sondages, une question de société distincte?” Recherches sociogaphiques 29 (2-3): 417–38.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, S.J., Andrew, B., Soroka, S. and Maioni, A.. 2007. “The Media: All Horse Race, All the Time.” Policy Options (April): 62–68.Google Scholar
Franklin, C. 2007. The “Margin of Error” for Differences in Polls. http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf (November 30, 2011).Google Scholar
Gawiser, S. R. and Witt, G. E.. 1994. A Journalist's Guide to Public Opinion Polls. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
Gingras, A-M. 2006. Médias et démocratie. Le grand malentendu. 2de édition. Montréal: Presse de l'Université du Québec.Google Scholar
Johnston, R., Blais, A., Brady, H.E. and Crête, J.. 1992. Letting the People Decide: Dynamics of a Canadian Election. Montreal and Kingston: McGill–Queens' University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, S. G. 2003. “Misunderstanding Error Margin: Network News Coverage of Polls during the 2000 General Election.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8(1): 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. and Bracken, C. C.. 2002. “Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting Intercoder Reliability.” Human Communication Research 28 (4): 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, P. 2002. Precision Journalism: A Reporter's Introduction to Social Science Methods. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Orwell, G. 1949. Nineteen Eighty Four. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Patterson, T. E. 1993. Out of Order. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Patterson, T. E. 2005. “Of Polls, Mountains. U.S. Journalists and Their Use of Election Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (5): 716–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickup, M. and Johnston, R.. 2007. “Campaign Trail Heats as Election Forecasts: Evidence from the 2004 and 2006 Canadian Elections.” Electoral Studies 26: 460–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstiel, T. 2005. “Political Polling and the Media Culture: A Case of More Being Less.” Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (5): 698–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenker, N. and Gentleman, J.F.. 2001. “On Judging the Significance of Differences by Examining the Overlap between Confidence Intervals.” The American Statistician 55 (3): 182–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seife, C. 2010. Proofiness: How You're Being Fooled by the Numbers. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Trimble, L. and Sampert, S.. 2004. “Who's in the Game? The Framing of Election 2000 by The Globe and Mail and the National Post.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zukin, C. 2004. Sources of Variation in Published Election Polling: A Primer. http://www.aapor.org/uploads/zukin_election_primer.pdf (December 21, 2011).Google Scholar