UPDATE: The class is multimedia: You may include evaluation of reports, commentaries, posts, tweets, memes, in all kinds of media, on the President’s speech in Malacañang last night and the ensuing Q & A (i,e., all kinds of reports, commentaries, posts, tweets, memes , in all kinds of media including the social media on the President’s speech and the media conference). Two or more paragraphs — you can write in your own site/ platform/account and paste the link here, or write in the comments section here, or email your post to me either as a link or as embedded paragraphs: Pls do not use “postbox” in your email or any app that cannot be opened by anyone except yourself. The deadline is extended to 1pm today Jan. 29.
For ethics students C110: This is a continuation of this afternoon’s discussion. You may post the second bonus media monitor here for ten points as discussed a few minutes ago inside the classroom, with the discussion extended here. Pls examine how the Malacañang press corps followed thru the presidenital announcement with their questions, or how media organizations storified the presidential media conference with their news reports, i.e., news reports of the presidential announcement and the media conference. [you don’t have to evaluate the news subject (PNoy) — you can if you want to — but we will be looking at your evaluation of the news report or the news reporter.],
You may also email your evaluation instead of posting here. You can state whether the report/ reporting is a form of good practice (specify why), or a violation of media ethics (specify the pertinent provision), or involves an ethical dilemma (specify the principle of ethics involved) (fair, foolish, or in an ethical fix). Mere rants without substance will not be given any points.
You may use a pseudonym or your student number or your name. Deadline is up to the end of the morning news tomorrow at 10am. Those who cannot post for the bonus points may post a regular media monitor on any story in the media (any media: online, TV or radio, social media, newspapers, etc. ) for five points, with the same deadline at 10am tomorrow.
How the news media erroneously reported the latest survey as an increase in the President’s trust rating (marichulambino)
Based on the reports and media monitor of student serendipity and Mark Sing
Student “serendipity” quoted the Rappler story on the latest SWS survey on the President’s trust rating, while student Mark Sing reiterated the discussion in class that the sponsors of most surveys are never disclosed and that the exact wording of questions in opinion polls are, most of the time, not released to the public.
What could be added to these is a discussion on how to apply the margin of error for a more accurate reporting of the survey, as follows:
Blog admin’s comments: The news media and the SWS (Inquirer, Rappler, ABS-CBN, etc.) storified the latest SWS survey on the President’s trust rating as an increase in the President’s popularity, as follows:
From Rappler: headline: “Aquino gov’t ratings rebound from record low” xxx “moderate’ +29 net score in the previous quarter, the current government’s satisfaction rating rose to a ‘good’ +35.”
From the Inquirer: “Aquino Administration Satisfaction Rrating Improves – SWS
That is, the figures are: from the previous quarter: a +29 or positive 29 , and up to the present quarter: a +35 or positive 35.
The science or methodology may remain the same through all surveys, or may even be unassailable without the entire results disclosed, but the manner by which the survey is reported out or storified, or spinned by the news media, should be examined by media practitioners and the audience (viewers and readers).
The margin of error is +/-3% or plus or minus 3 per cent.
This means that the figures could also be 3 per cent more or 3 per cent less.
Applying the +/-3% margin of error, or plus or minus 3 per cent margin of error, that means the +29 could range from a +26 to a +32 (the President’s trust rating in the previous quarter).
On the other hand, the +35 in the current quarter could range from +32 to +38.
See where the figures meet?
Because of the plus or minus 3% margin of error, the figures actually meet at +32%.
In other words, the difference is not statistically significant.
In other words, Another way of reporting this more accurately is: the trust rating remains statistically the same between the previous quarter and the current quarter.
But the news media, or most of the mainstream news media organizations, reported this as: “The President’s trust rating rebounds” “The President’s trust rating improves” etc.
It is a sneak peek of things to come. In the next 18 months running up to 2016, there will be more and more storification of surveys on how this personality or that presidentiable is leading in the polls, or has rebounded, or how the ratings have improved, even if the differences are statistically insignificant or the small leads are actually statistical ties.
the oft-quoted description of surveys are that they are “self-fulfilling prophecies” — when, in reality however, it is the news media that turn surveys into “self-fulfilling prophecies” by distended storification and “spinning” to create a “bandwagon effect”.
Perhaps, a paradigm-shift or a metaphor-shift is in order:
The next 18 months leading up to the 2016 presidential elections is honeyfication time : when survey firms and the news media turn and spin favored presidentiables into honey , for donors, campaign contributors, and power-brokers to swarm to — like ants to sweets.
