See previous post. After we pointed out that the vice presidential survey asked for only one name from the respondents, yet the purported “presidential” survey asked for three names –After the unexplained disparity and inconsistency was pointed out here (see previous post)… one of the parties affected must have moved a muscle and SWS finally released info on the real presidential survey (where respondents were asked whom they would vote for president if elections were held today). It showed a statistical tie.
The other day’s purported “presidential” survey result day was highly favorable to one party. Quite strangely, most of the leading news portals copied from one copy and used the same words as part of their headline to say that one party purportedly had overtaken another party: see for yourself (or ask my students — this was part of our exam today on the topic “Reporting Surveys”) — the phenomenon the other day where the leading news portals used the same headline or the same words for part of the headline, and the same lead or part of a lead. It was really strange, the last time that happened notoriously was during martial law when the crony press copied from one copy from the dictator’s press office.
Nagkopyahan.
In the University, when writing assignments are given out on the same topic or the same event, students turn in work differently worded from each another, of course — no two students turn in exactly the same title or the same first ten words in their first paragraph.
Nung isang araw… nagkopyahan ang mga dyaryo (the other day, the news portals copied from each other, or copied from one and the same copy).
Dyah’ll see wots-gowin-owwnn (ahm usin’ mah feyk suthern eccent eggen) (do y’all see wat’s goin on, i’m usin my fake southern accent again, tee-hee 🙂 )
Nobody looked carefully at the SWS press releases published by Businessworld and mindlessly used by leading broadsheet editors, and nobody asked the following question:
The SWS press release on the survey on the next President used the survey result which asked respondents to GIVE THREE NAMES on who could be the next President; BUTfor the vice president survey, it used and released the survey result which asked the respondents for only ONE NAME, or: “Whom would you vote for Vice President should elections be held today?” (asked for only ONE NAME, name of the candidate they would vote for vice president ). Here are the links to the SWS media releases of their “Third Quearter 2015 Social Weather Survey” so you can see for yourself instead of relying on the mindless reporting of the broadsheets:
WHY? WHY? BAKIT? ANO ANG DAHILAN? WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION? BAKIT GANUN? WHY IS THE SWS SELECTIVE IN ITS RELEASE OF INFO ON SURVEY RESULTS?
The “explanation” of an SWS representative that the question they asked for the next President (three names) was the usual question they have been using since 2007, and which they have been using since the filing of candidacy has not started — is NOT availing because: for Vice President, they have a survey result based on a question which asked respondents for only one name for Vice President. The SWS explanation cannot be relied upon —
And no one is asking the SWS: Why is there a disparity in the kind of survey result info being released for the next President and for the next VP.
WHY? WHY? BAKIT? ANO ANG DAHILAN? WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION? BAKIT GANUN? WHY IS THE SWS SELECTIVE IN ITS RELEASE OF INFO ON SURVEY RESULTS?
Those candidates who are “elated” (see inquirer.net) over the released info of SWS should be careful what they are “elated” about.
Nobody asked SWS:
Since you conducted a 3rd quarter survey that asked for only one name for Vice President: IS THERE A 3rd QUARTER SURVEY THAT ASKED 1,200 RESPONDENTS NATIONWIDE FOR ONLY ONE NAME FOR PRESIDENT? (or if none, what is the explanation for the disparity, the inconsistency, lack of sense and logic in difference of questions used for Pres and Vice Pres) Whyyy whyyy whyyyy?
