JF_Aidan_Pryde
Regular
Comprehensive poll by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/html/default.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/html/default.stm
What the world thinks of America
- Thread starter JF_Aidan_Pryde
- Start date
I will sum up american response to the poll: Like we give a care.
Heh. And I did it without reading the results.
/sarcasm for those who missed it
Heh. And I did it without reading the results.
/sarcasm for those who missed it
Seriously, though. From that bit of polling, I've determined the French hate all things American and the Jordanians simply hate America.
Or not so seriously.
Or not so seriously.
The question is, why does Brazil have such a bug up its ass?
The polling questions are kind of weird, like asking French if they think they are more or less cultured, should adopt American standards of freedom, economics, etc. Answering yes is an admission that your own country is inferior, so almost everyone answers no.
Imagine the following question about "What do Americans think of France"
"do you think the US should aspire to French standards of freedom and expression and democratic institutions?"
Since most Americans believe their 230+ year old democratic institutions are the ultimate, they are bound to answer no. But the answer is not a reflection that French institutions are bad, just that Americans like their current system and see no reason to change.
The polling questions are kind of weird, like asking French if they think they are more or less cultured, should adopt American standards of freedom, economics, etc. Answering yes is an admission that your own country is inferior, so almost everyone answers no.
Imagine the following question about "What do Americans think of France"
"do you think the US should aspire to French standards of freedom and expression and democratic institutions?"
Since most Americans believe their 230+ year old democratic institutions are the ultimate, they are bound to answer no. But the answer is not a reflection that French institutions are bad, just that Americans like their current system and see no reason to change.
Polling is a plague. Like referenda it mostly gives the illusion of democracy but were so limited by the simple questioning I often choose not to answer. We got about 40 questionnaires for candidates during the provincial election by special interest groups who then used it in advertising and for information for their own members. The questions were so overly simplistic I chose not to answer about half of them.
I did try to write a few explanations to some of the themes covered by the questionnaires. Usually involving a question in response to many of their questions.
But no doubt polling is popular. Hopefully people will either lose interest and go back to the ballot box or at least the polls will become richer and offer more possible answers to more questions on a given theme.
I did try to write a few explanations to some of the themes covered by the questionnaires. Usually involving a question in response to many of their questions.
But no doubt polling is popular. Hopefully people will either lose interest and go back to the ballot box or at least the polls will become richer and offer more possible answers to more questions on a given theme.
Yeah allot of the questions are not realistic. Polls can be ruthlessly manipulated and I as a rule don't like them unless they are conducted properly, otherwise you get useless information like most of these polls seem to produce. Often the poll takers bias comes shinning through so they can get the desired results but it is unfair to say that all pollsters would do that.
There is only one use for this poll IMO and that is manipulation.
There is only one use for this poll IMO and that is manipulation.
This is the BBC we're talking about, not some shady TV talkshow asking a handfull of people on the street a few inflamatory questions. From the information given at the first page of the poll, it seems like it was comprehensively conducted. I'm curious, how you came to the conclusion these polls were not conducted "properly"? Do you know anything about the polls that we don't? Also, do you really think the BBC's intention with this poll is manipulation? As carefully as most questions were phrased I don't think so, IMO its just intended to inform the public about the opinions of people from several different places of this world (wether the results mean anything or are representative at all is another question).Sabastian said:
Though I agree that some parts of the poll don't exactly contain much usefull or interesting information and some questions are bunk, I don't see what's supposed to be so shocking either. Except for a few cases there's hardly anything surprising to the results, except if you've been living in a different world than the rest of us for the past couple years...
there are lies, damned lies, and statistics (polls).
you could get a completly different result by just changing the wording of the questions. polls are highly error prone.
later,
you could get a completly different result by just changing the wording of the questions. polls are highly error prone.
later,
Gollum said:
I realize that the BBC is a credible source. BTW the BBC is state owned and operated isn’t it? In Canada we have a similar organization called the CBC and while they are not a “TV talkshow asking a handfull of people on the street a few inflamatory questions.†I wouldn’t rely on them as if they were an unbiased organization.( They most definitely are not.) But in this case the BBC has relied on a wide variety of polling organizations from all over the world. This is not to say they are the same sort of organization at all but it is my point of reference, from what I have read BBC is considerably less bias.
This could only be a weakness.
Gollum said:
There is no information that leads me to think that indeed the poll was conducted in a scientific manner at all on that page. It is a matter of fact information about whom conducted the poll and on what subjects. It makes no mention of the exact demographics of the people surveyed or exact wording / context / order and so on. It isn’t that I know more about polling or anything of the sort. For instance you will get very different results on political questions if your target group is a rural area as opposed to an urban area. There is one characteristic that is commendable of this poll and that is its scope or effort a large undertaking really but maybe a little too large.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/html/default.stm
Gollum said:
No, I didn’t say that the BBC was trying to manipulate anyone. What I said is that the only use for the poll is manipulation, not that this is what the BBC has intentions of doing but we really don’t know what the motivation was do we?
Gollum said:
We don’t really know anything about the context or the exact wording of the questions at all, one assumes that the questions asked are worded in much the same way we see them on the web page though…. As to the informative part, that may well be, but usually there is a bias that the pollster wants to show for some reason or other, we assume that the BBC being a news organization (running purely on state funding BTW.) is in the *cough* business of informing the public… But for the most part it wasn’t conducted by the BBC at all was it? I know my opinion is here is skeptical of the results or the motives and maybe I am over critical of polls in general but there are good reasons for that. It doesn’t mean necessarily that I am absolutely right or wrong. I don’t know that and that is why I pick at polls heavy.
Gollum said:Though I agree that some parts of the poll don't exactly contain much usefull or interesting information and some questions are bunk, I don't see what's supposed to be so shocking either. Except for a few cases there's hardly anything surprising to the results, except if you've been living in a different world than the rest of us for the past couple years...
For the past couple of years? What are you getting at? I agreed pretty much up until that point, you will have to elaborate.
I feel it pertinent to quote Randy Newman here:
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
For a more comprehensive poll that deals with many of the same issues (along with many, many others), check out the Pew Research Center's global public opinion poll. This got some press because of the result that people in some countries say they trust Osama Bin Laden as a world leader; but the report itself is ~160 pages long (plus the actual result data is another ~160 pages), so there's a whole, whole lot more in it.
I think it gives a more nuanced view of America's standing in the world (although I wouldn't say it disagrees with that BBC poll all that much), and it answers many of the objections that have been made here about the BBC poll (for example, the impact of question wording on the results is mitigated by the fact that many of the results show trends from when the same question was asked months or years apart; the Pew Center has a reputation as one of the most trustworthy opinion research groups in the world).
I think it gives a more nuanced view of America's standing in the world (although I wouldn't say it disagrees with that BBC poll all that much), and it answers many of the objections that have been made here about the BBC poll (for example, the impact of question wording on the results is mitigated by the fact that many of the results show trends from when the same question was asked months or years apart; the Pew Center has a reputation as one of the most trustworthy opinion research groups in the world).
I object to questions like "Do you think American quality/institution/culture item X is better than your country's?" since people are apt to feel that their own society is perfectly fine, and indeed, given nationalist feelings, better than others.
I mean, what if you asked the question "Do you think French are arrogant?" do you think it's going to get a noticiably difference response than if you asked about Americans?
The only questions I find disturbing are questions like "Is the US or Al Qaeda more dangerous". I don't how anyone can feel that a secretive, dispersed, non-democratic, paramilitary organization, dedicated to causing violence throughout the world can be more dangerous than an open, democratic, bureaucratic one.
I mean, even if you feel that US military power has the potential to be dangerous when used unilaterally, simply because it it's sheer size and power, you can't really argue that you are surprised when it is used, nor that there wasn't a debate on its use, nor that other resorts are atleast given a chance before it is used.
I find secretive organizations hell bent on using weapons to kill massive numbers of civilians at random to effect political change far more scary. And the likelihood of a US attack on any of the countries included in the poll is infinitestimal compared to Al Qaeda action.
And it is utterly amazing the number of people who are not for non-proliferation of nukes, and who do not view NK as dangerous, especially given that their own governments agree with US policy.
I think when someone asks a poll question like "Do you agree with US non-proliferation policy" and they answer NO, they don't even have a clue as to what they policy is, but are answering no, simply because they know all US foreign policy is bad a priori.
I mean, what if you asked the question "Do you think French are arrogant?" do you think it's going to get a noticiably difference response than if you asked about Americans?
The only questions I find disturbing are questions like "Is the US or Al Qaeda more dangerous". I don't how anyone can feel that a secretive, dispersed, non-democratic, paramilitary organization, dedicated to causing violence throughout the world can be more dangerous than an open, democratic, bureaucratic one.
I mean, even if you feel that US military power has the potential to be dangerous when used unilaterally, simply because it it's sheer size and power, you can't really argue that you are surprised when it is used, nor that there wasn't a debate on its use, nor that other resorts are atleast given a chance before it is used.
I find secretive organizations hell bent on using weapons to kill massive numbers of civilians at random to effect political change far more scary. And the likelihood of a US attack on any of the countries included in the poll is infinitestimal compared to Al Qaeda action.
And it is utterly amazing the number of people who are not for non-proliferation of nukes, and who do not view NK as dangerous, especially given that their own governments agree with US policy.
I think when someone asks a poll question like "Do you agree with US non-proliferation policy" and they answer NO, they don't even have a clue as to what they policy is, but are answering no, simply because they know all US foreign policy is bad a priori.
BTW, I do not view the BBC as credible anymore since they reported on the outrageous Jessica Lynch assertions (soldiers used blanks, etc) all of which have been debunked.
News organizations are getting lazy today, and instead of doing real investigative reporting, interviewing all parties involved, they simply pick up whatever Reuters/API/UPI stories that are floating around and simply editorialize them.
News organizations are getting lazy today, and instead of doing real investigative reporting, interviewing all parties involved, they simply pick up whatever Reuters/API/UPI stories that are floating around and simply editorialize them.
JF_Aidan_Pryde
Regular
DemoCoder said:
That BBC has a long history and world reputation. While I can see how you may feel, I wouldn't exactly let one bad story (or a few) permanently change my view on the credibility of that organisation. I listen to the world service as my primary news source, and honestly I don't know of a better news organsation.
DemoCoder said:
I don't mean this antagonistically but where were they debunked? I looked all over the net, but all I could find were the original BBC story which basically said "Based on some eyewitness accounts, this happened", and a rebuttal from the military that basically said "no it didn't", and an article from the Lynch family that said they weren't prepared to discuss it. The US article didn't get into specific debunking of BBC claims, nor was I able to find a retraction by the BBC itself. Some initial claims of the Lynch rescue, however, were definately debunked, such as the fact that she was shot and stabbed by her kidnappers. So I was just wondering where the BBC was debunked on that particular story. If someone could provide links, it would be helpful.
Similar threads
