We Have Priorities [UPDATED]

Dollars and Balance (4.00 / 4)

Even the slanted TA poll didn't have a huge separation as of midnight last night: 51.8 no, vs. 48.1 yes. A friend told me he sat and watched the numbers leap a thousand or so on the no side over just a few minutes. That is known as "freeping" a poll, according to Kestrel.

And the kicker is that the TA supports the marriage equality bill editorially. Want to bet some number cruncher over there in the sales department got worried that they'd lose more subscribers and put up the poll with its obviously slanted wording as an offset to the editorial stance?

The good news is that the St. Albans Messenger just came out with a pro-marriage-equality editorial. But Emerson Lynn doesn't post his prose online (gotta keep something for the paying customers).

NanuqFC
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: NanuqFC @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 08:01:33 AM CDT

We support equal rights! (4.00 / 1)

I cannot disagree more with your accusations of divisiveness and "pitting Vermonter against Vermonter."
I understand that some people may think that all that drives newspapers is money. Times are tight. But we took a stance in 2000 that was extremely unpopular and stuck with it because it is the right thing to do - support equal rights for all Vermonters. My grandfather wrote editorials against McCarthy in the 1950s and against racism when those were very unpopular things to do. We did this before it was okay to do so for many of our readers and advertisers, and people canceled subscriptions, sent hate mail and stopped their ads.
The editorial of a newspaper is the voice of the publisher and the community we serve. Sometimes the editorial leads the community, sometimes it follows. There is no "number crucher" in our sales department who decides our online poll question. There is no "offsetting" the editorial stance - plain and simple we support gay marriage as a civil right. We said so editorially, and that is separate from our news coverage and VERY separate from our ad department.
We are not just a poll question, we are much more than that. We provide a forum for people to voice their opinions, and we do not discriminate against any opinion - we protect free speech.
It is easy to get fired up about a poll question, but we have put our money where our mouth is in support of equal rights time and time again.
So I respectfully disagree with you, Caoimhin Laochdha. You boiled down everything we do into one tiny corner of what we do, and that one thing is not representative at all of these locally-owned Vermont newspapers.
The poll question is a poll question - it does not have anything to do with the respect the Times Argus and the Rutland Herald have for same-sex couples and their rights.

Sincerely,

Rob Mitchell

---

by: robmitch802 @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 12:42:44 PM CDT

And you should be commended for your support... (4.00 / 3)

... of equal rights.

But I think this gets to the larger question of the influence of language in the media and how it helps to shape public opinion.

I completely agree with Caoimhin Laochdha and others that the way the poll was worded is asking a very different (and loaded) question than simply gauging support for gay marriage -- even if that was not the intent.

Words matter. And in my opinion, a reasonable interpretation of the poll's wording invites the poll taker to consider whether or not the legislature is "wasting its time" on gay marriage. Again, that may not have been the intent.

I'm sure we're all aware that polls are often misleading in this way... And we know that sometimes subtle word changes in a poll -- intentionally or not -- can elicit a far different response than might be accurate. And that the inaccurate results are used as proof of an opinion which may not actually exist.

But, yes, this is just one online poll. And I agree that it shouldn't tarnish the good stances you've taken. But it's also possible to acknowledge that it could have been phrased differently to better assess Vermonters true attitude about gay marriage becoming law in Vermont.

---

by: Vermonter @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 13:07:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

true (4.00 / 1)

Vermonter, you are correct. In one sense, words is all we've got, and we take that seriously. Granted, we aren't in the poll business, but how would you word a poll  question in a more useful way?  

---

by: robmitch802 @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 13:58:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reductionism redux (4.00 / 2)

Dear Mr. Mitchell,

It is true that the Times Argus/ Rutland Herald took a lot of heat for their courageous and correct editorial stance during the Civil Unions debate, particularly then-editor (and later Pulitzer Prize winner) David Moats, who received death threats for his persistent and patient explanations as to why civil unions were (then) the right thing for Vermont to do. Props to the papers for that.

Your comment decries Caoimhin's diary for reducing the TA's diverse content and long history of support for equality and fairness to one slanted poll. But you have neglected to justify the biased wording of that poll or the false premises it embodies. And when that poll is front page on your website over several days, that's what people immediately respond to.

In effect, you yourself (or staff working for you, and presumably with your knowledge) reduced your coverage -- not only of the marriage bill, but of the long list of priorities (of which marriage equality was the last on the list) presented by the legislative leadership -- to a badly worded question designed to elicit opposition.

Do you have a justification for the poll's apparently provocative wording? Or any other evidence that Caoimhin's analysis of its premises is wrong?

Really, you know, it's when our friends disappoint us so badly that it hurts the most.

NanuqFC
[M]any who testified stressed that the very existence of a separate track for same-sex couples is unfair and creates an inferior status for same-sex couples and their families." From the Report of the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection (p. 6)

---

by: NanuqFC @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 13:48:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reductio Ad Absurdum (4.00 / 1)

I do agree that poll wording can affect the way a given person answers - that is scientifically proven. I don't really have the training to evaluate that. I think we may have a false argument going here: we agree on the question of wording, but I really find where that leads Caoimhin to be offensive.

The premise of Caoimhin's original post was this:

The Times Argus' "poll" **  is nothing more than a direct, in-your-face, jab at gays and lesbians specifically, and the majority of Vermonters, in general, who value equal protection of the law.

I disagree. I believe that is a false premise, to its core. I gave evidence that this is not true: our record of support for civil rights for all people regardless of race or sexual orientation. A poll question does not and will not change that.

On the question of wording in poll questions, I do agree that they can be inflammatory or poorly worded. I don't agree that this particular poll question goes as far as Caoimhin argues. The WPTZ question is a simpler, more elegant question, and we probably should have gone that way.

---

by: robmitch802 @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 15:04:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

quite apart (4.00 / 6)

from the specifics of this back and forth, I'd like to say how refreshing it is to see a publisher / editor engage in a direct and respectfull exchange with readers

moreover - and perhaps more importantly - he acknowledged the problem and the mistake

it is inconceivable to me that that the Free Press or WCAX would do as much

so while I agree with those who are concerned about the language of the poll, I want to thank Rob for his (apparent) willingness to listen, learn from the experience, and try to do better next time

do you guys have enough money to buy the Free Press?

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 15:30:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rob, Welcome to GMD (4.00 / 4)

I hope you'll drop in again and comment, and not just when we're throwing skunks on your porch!

This is a fair point and I agree with you:

The editorial of a newspaper is the voice of the publisher and the community we serve. Sometimes the editorial leads the community, sometimes it follows. . .  
We are not just a poll question, we are much more than that. We provide a forum for people to voice their opinions, and we do not discriminate against any opinion - we protect free speech.
It is easy to get fired up about a poll question, but we have put our money where our mouth is in support of equal rights time and time again.

Let me explain why it was so easy "to get fired up about a poll question."

This post does not call out the editorial board of the Times Argus. This post focused on (at least it attempted to) on how the wording in a survey affects the narrative of public policy.    

I saw the question shortly after the Democratic leaders in the General Assembly laid out a list of objectives for the remainder of the legislative session. It included many items and I linked to some of them in the text.

Examples - in addition to marriage equality - of the legislative agenda include:
   

An economic development and jobs creation bill including targeted money for venture capital.

Speaker's $125 million bonding proposal transportation projects, state and local roads and bridges and capital projects to strengthen the public transit system.

Green energy bill to encourage development of in state renewable energy generation, and development of solar, biomass and geothermal technology as well as wind development on state lands.

A critically needed decommissioning bill for a financiallly unsound Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Vermont Yankee will tax future Vermonters if the the plant's owners are held accountable for the entire clean up costs.

Balancing the Unemployment Insurance Fund without placing the entire burden on our struggling businesses.

Badly need campaign finance reform and same day voter registration.

I also appreciate that the Times Argues covered Speaker Smith and Senator Shumlin's press conference when they outlined some of their priorities.

This is where the poll language landed, however.  

There has been a constant, false and cynical refrain to which our gay and lesbian family, friends and neighbors have been subjected.

It has been generated by Governor Douglas and many conservatives and it has been regurgitated throughout the media. It goes like this:  "The legislature has more important things to do than take up same sex marriage.  When Vermonters are suffering from the Great [*cough* Republican created cough] Recession, the legislature needs to address more important priorities." The Governor and his conservative allies have hammered away at that message.  

The message is false because equal rights are always a priority and fixing an injustice is  something our elected leader have the time to do or they are responsible for finding the time to do it.  The fact is, the bill that gives equal marriage rights changes approximately four words in the Vermont Code, it was drafted months ago and the study work on how to implement the changes in State policy has already occurred. There is no "time" issue. That is just bogus.

The message is cynical because Governor Douglas and his party are the ones attempting to jam the General Assembly into frustrated inaction. The only reason this might become complicated, and it shouldn't, is because the Governor and many conservatives are throwing mud on the wall hoping to distract FROM the work of the legislature.  They are running from the merits of this debate. They are trying to escape into a narrative where they only harp about whether there needs to be a debate and how awful that debate will be, but they are afraid to speak to the merits of the debate.  Wimps.

Here is the GOP's message to Vermont and the coordinated message the Governor and the GOP have been spinning to Vermont's media all session:

Shap Smith and Peter Shumlin have chosen to jeopardize Vermont's economic recovery plans by putting the interests of a highly ideological special interest group above the bi-partisan needs of everyone else.

Contact your legislators and tell them NOT NOW on gay marriage for Vermont.

See what I mean?

They're afraid to say "we are against marriage equality" so they hide behind how "divisive" competing priorities are WHEN THEY ARE THE ONES MAKING THE DIVISIVE ARGUMENTS. It's the GOP that is forcing a narrative into the debate that falsely suggests that some Vermonters are more worthy of having their voices heard and others need to be second class citizens when there is other work to do.  They are hiding behind a false narrative of "NOT NOW" we don't have time, and it's either your money or those "highly (gay) ideological (lesbian) special interests." All false, all fear, all the time.

The survey question in the Times Argus arrived in the context of the false and cynical messaging by the Republican Party and the Governor claiming that "same sex marriage will take priority over the economic well being of Vermonters."  In that light, the poll appeared just as divisive as the messaging that is being coordinated by the Governor and the Republican Party. The survey's language read like it was being played right out of the Governor's and the GOP's confuse, conflate and be cynical about it playbook.  

I stated what I believe to be the effect of the survey's language. Regardless of what I think the effect of the poll's language might be, I respect that the survey does NOT reflect the thinking of the Times Argus.

I have also made changes in my post. I agree that my post should have kept the discussion on the effect of the survey's language rather than wandering into whether there was any intent by the Times Argus to, as I read the survey's language, play into a false narrative.

Thank you for you comments.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 20:56:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Skunks are okay (4.00 / 2)

Caoimhin - Thank you for your responses, and I understand your position better now. I'm even beginning to agree with you(!). From the perspective of our newspapers - I can't speak for WCAX - the poll questions we post are not meant to be scientific, just a kind of insta-ticker on opinion. They are not high on our day-to-day priorities.
But as you have pointed out, this can have repercussions and we need to re-think this. Maybe a newspaper poll questions should be reserved for American-idol style debates unless we put in the work to make them accurate and neutral. As the poster below points out, and I believe, our credibility is central to our value to society.

FYI, contrary to what Doug Hoffer implied, I'm neither the publisher nor editor of the Herald or Times Argus, but I do work closely with all of them.
And, in the future I'll add comments without skunks on my porch. Thank you again,

Rob

---

by: robmitch802 @ Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 12:14:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sorry (0.00 / 0)

you referred to your grandfather as an editorialist and you spoke of the paper as "we"

so you can see why I (incorrectly) assumed you were either the publisher or the editor

I now see that your name is listed immediately below the publisher's and above the general manager; I guess you do "work closely with all of them"

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 16:45:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

poll (0.00 / 0)

Sometimes people will be more honest in a poll. They don't want to be called out by people they know for their views. And look what happened in California with Prop 8.

---

by: nomlasl @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 16:46:09 PM CDT

misleading polls (4.00 / 3)

It isn't just the wording or phrasing of the question that is problematic.  It is the content of the question.  And it is the presentation of an inaccurate poll as news.  

The newspaper was not asking about support for marriage equality.  It was inviting the public to view marriage equality as in competition with other unnamed issues (the reader is left to imagine the list of items that might be a greater priority to the reader).

Editorial support for marriage equality can't excuse an offensive poll question.  You don't get to bank fairness credits and use them to excuse later mistakes.  We get that the people at the TA have a lot to be proud of and are certainly not evil.  But people in the business of communicating ideas with words should recognize that there is more that is wrong with this poll question than inelegant wording.

Governor Douglas started a political narrative that seeks to derail the efforts to achieve marriage equality by setting up a false choice between this issue and others.  This narrative invites divisiveness and us vs. them thinking.  I'd like to see the TA and others question Douglas about the appropriateness of this strategy.  Instead, the TA put his narrative into the form of a poll.  The poll is offensive for the reason that the Douglas tactic is offensive.

Personally, I think it hurts the credibility of a news organization to use these meaningless polls in the first place (I've even heard WCAX quote their online poll results as news on the air!).  These polls are not scientifically sound and do not provide factual information.  They should at least be clearly labeled as entertainment.  And the poll topics should reflect the fact that these polls are about as accurate as the horoscopes.

Ask who should win American Idol.  Don't ask about the fundamental human rights of gay people in a politically charged way in a politically charged environment.

---

by: TomEsxJct @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 19:50:48 PM CDT

Hear, hear! n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: annikee @ Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 16:22:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rob at TA... (0.00 / 0)

just doesn't get it. He wanted an example and the poster gave the WPTZ poll as one more neutral (in plain and simple language).  

---

by: JayV @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 19:56:12 PM CDT

I get it...slowly (3.00 / 1)

I did point out that I felt the WPTZ poll was simpler and more elegant and we should probably have gone that way.  

---

by: robmitch802 @ Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 12:15:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]