I note that the BBC, who are hosting extensive coverage of Al Gore's Live Earth gig, have had to rephrase their poll to get even 45% support for it. The original poll (found here) asked whether Live Earth can "make people more environmentally-aware", a simple yes or no question tackling the concerts' professed goal that scored a pretty damning 87.97% against the gig after 10769 votes cast; but now at "Sydney kicks off Live Earth gigs" the poll has changed to the totally meaningless "Live Earth: Can people make a difference?" with its equally waffly "yes/no/not sure" options. Now you don't need any great experience of quantitative research methods to work out that this isn't how you phrase a question that you actually want to know the answer to: is it asking if Live Earth can make a difference, or if people can make a difference? Well, neither: it just means that the BBC can point to a poll that says people are vaguely indifferent to the chances of Live Earth's success (as the confused 45%/45%/10% result can be read to demonstrate), rather than one that says it, just like their much-criticised propaganda for Live 8, is just another of their pet projects we couldn't give a toss about.
 |
| Al Gore invented the internet: he can have as many damn screens as he wants! |
Posts
