Focus Group: "Change" is Tired, Hello "Accountability?"

By Big Blue on TPM: Let's note a couple of things real quick. First, a focus group of twenty-one people is absolutely useless as an indicator of what undecided Americans think. You could have asked a single nine year old child what they thought and had just as much relevant information. You cannot make any determinations about the opinions of literally millions of people based on a twenty-one person sample. This is Statistics 101.

Secondly, when you visit a focus group under the guidance of a long-time Republican message and polling operative, and things somehow mysteriously wind up looking bad for the Democratic candidate, that should raise at least some suspicion. Am I seriously supposed to believe a completely undecided voter would have compared Obama's Berlin speech to a fucking Nazi rally? Hell, Klein doesn't even bother to tell us that Frank Luntz is a Republican operative, which seems like a massive journalistic failure to me.

And note the woman who says that she doesn't want pretty speeches. She wants details. Obama may have the most detailed plans of any candidate to run for office in my lifetime, perhaps ever. And they are all available here and nearly all include full fledged pdf files providing every conceivable detail you'd want. All that quote tells me is that the media isn't giving the public what they really want. The media continues to refuse to make this election about issues. They refuse to detail either of the candidates plans, despite the fact that in most cases, where Obama has details coming out of his ears, McCain has vague plans mixed with platitudes and no means for which to even pay for them. Seriously, look over the two candidates' issues pages and tell me which one is "pretty words" and which one is "details."

also a letter by CHronospark to Joe Klein:Mr. Klein,

I have to say I am utterly disgusted by your lack of journalistic integrity. In your recent blog entry titled, "Focused," you speak about a focus group headed by a known Republican hack.

Let me just show you the integrity of the man you seem to have such trust in for neutrality. From Wikipedia's article on him (all information is cited, so go check it yourself if you'd like):

'In 1997, he was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for refusing to release poll data to support his claimed results "because of client confidentiality". Diane Colasanto, who was president of the AAPOR when it reprimanded Luntz, said, "It is simply wanting to know, How many people did you question? What were the questions? We understand the need for confidentiality, but once a pollster makes results public, the information needs to be public. People need to be able to evaluate whether it was sound research." In 2000 he was censured by the National Council on Public Polls "for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention." In September 2004, MSNBC dropped Luntz from its planned coverage of that year's presidential debate, following a letter from Media Matters that outlined Luntz's GOP ties and questionable polling methodology. In a video piece, entertainers and libertarians Penn & Teller lambasted Luntz for his comment that the key to survey polling is "to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer".'

He is KNOWN for mischaracterizing information from focus groups. And you trust the guy? How pathetic. The alarm should have gone off in your head when someone actually compared Obama's rally in Berlin to a Nazi rally.

But fine, you're just reporting what took place there, right? So why not mention Luntz' past transgressions? Why not raise doubt on the focus group he conducted, as a true journalist would? It makes sense that, given Luntz' history, Obama would look worse from such a focus group. You don't tell your readers any of this, and frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for it.