Follow the Pollsters
Inaccuracies in Media Coverage of the Horse-race during the 2008 Canadian Election
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7706402 |
|---|---|
| Authors | François Pétry (Université Laval), Frédérick Bastien (Université de Montréal) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-26 |
| Publication date | 2013-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Canadian Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0008-4239 • E-ISSN: 1744-9324 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0008423913000188 |
| OpenAlex | W1970829264 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 13 |
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
Art · Humanities · Political science · Computational and Text Analysis Methods · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
News Reporting of Opinion Polls
Journalists’ level of knowledge on empirical research and opinion polling
Transforming Stability into Change
Fact or Fiction
The Quality of Public Opinion Poll Coverage in German National Newspapers during Federal Election Campaigns
Reporting the polls
Did They Mind the Gap? Voter/Party Ideological Proximity between the BQ, the NDP and Quebec Voters, 2006–2011
Should We or Should We Not Include Confidence Intervals in Covid-19 Death Forecasting? Evidence from a Survey Experiment
L'analyse automatisée du ton médiatique
Letting the People Decide
On Judging the Significance of Differences by Examining the Overlap Between Confidence Intervals
Content Analysis in Mass Communication
Misunderstanding Margin of Error
Of Polls, Mountains
Political Polling and the New Media Culture
Who's in the Game? The Framing of Election 2000 by The Globe and Mail and The National Post
Quelques aspects géographiques, financiers et politiques du zonage agricole au Québec
La méthodologie de sondage, une question de sociétés distinctes
Campaign trial heats as electoral information
Turnout and the party system in Canada, 1988-2004
Le grand malentendu
| Unique citing works | 9 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,82 |
| Citation span | 2015 - 2022 (8) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 9 |