Finally! We were starting to think that maybe SUZANNE had taken a Vow Of Silence on the MASSIVE POLL scandal -- yes, scandal, because until there's some proof of how the results of this "poll" came about, that's what it is, a Scandal of monstrous proportions (okay, now I'm hyperbolizing... but Mom, they did it fiiiiiiirst....).In response to the many questions about the poll's legitimacy, SUZANNE has posted what amounts to a defense of IVR automated surveys. Although this obviously doesn't answer the actual questions, to be fair, she's indicated that she'll address other points of contention in future posts. (Which we'll be waiting for.) However, it's surprising that she didn't answer CC, who was first out of the gate with what seems to be the simplest question of all:
"How do you know all of the above? Seriously, how do you know, beyond any doubt, that all of the above is exactly what happened? Please try to answer that question without resorting to, "Because they said so.""Exactly -- how does anyone know, without seeing the poll's backup data, that the poll happened as indicated in the CLC press release? Or for that matter, that the results were reported accurately? Because KLRVU said so? Wrong answer. The Right Answer would be something like: "Because I have a copy of the backup data right in front of me, and can email it to anyone who's interested".
The defense of IVR technology is beside the point. The question is how legitimate is an IVR poll, done by a company that's been as hard to nail down as Jello to a wall? The issues around KLRVU alone have been enough to de-legitimize the poll, and that's without even considering the gory details like the question that was asked (skewed), and the methodology (a mystery). This is not a hard concept. CFRA's John Counsell gets it, and said as much on his program last week. But never mind that -- the poll got the results that SUZANNE and her fellow travellers in CLC wanted to see, and that's where it ends for them.
Counsell pointed out on his show that not one mainstream media outlet had picked up the news about this poll; it was reported on lifesite and anti-abortion blogs, period. The media reported on the Ipsos Reid and Angus Reid polls, so why wouldn't they report on the KLRVU poll? Maybe because they wrote it off as invalid when they had trouble finding out anything about the company who conducted it.
So the questions remain. How can anyone know that the information released about the MASSIVE POLL is true? Where are the details explaining the poll's methodology? Why has KLRVU been simultaneously described as a new company, a 2-year old company, and a company operated by someone who's been offering research services for 2 years (a subtle difference from being a company which has been offering those services itself)? How did CLC find KLRVU in the first place, given that there was no way to track it down?
I'm not holding my breath for answers. I am, however, holding my nose as the bullshit around the MASSIVE POLL piles ever higher, and the acrid stench intensifies.
|