Mobocracy: How the Media's Obsession with Polling Twists the News, Alters Elections, and Undermines Democracy

by Matthew Robinson

Book Overview

Never before have public opinion polls played such a central role in the way policy is conceived, molded, and enacted. And at no time has there been a more dangerous and misleading abuse of public... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0761535829
• ISBN13: 9780761535829
• Release Date: January 2002
• Publisher: Prima Lifestyles
• Length: 272 Pages
• Weight: 1.20 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.2" x 5.9" x 8.8"

Customer Reviews

Interesting take on the matter!

Robinson's Premise is that the use of polls is killing the deliberative debate envisioned by the founders. I have to agree, not only because Robinson makes a good argument, but I've experienced it in various business and community initiatives.Robinson starts by examining errors common in polling methods and how these errors make it impossible to read actual public intentions. The book moves on to deal with specific issues of selecting an appropriate sample and wording problems.It is the second half of the book that I find most interesting. It is here that Robinson discusses the unitended consequences of polling. Mainly that polling cuts off debates, sometimes before it starts. Additionally that wording variations and issue framing changes demonstrate that in most cases the "opinion" measured is very soft. It is unfortunate, but necessary, that Robinson uses the Clinton impeachment and compares and contrasts with the Nixon impeachment polls. In both cases, the people gave the president the benefit of the doubt. Slowly as more information became available opinion turned, but in both cases the public prefered that the president resign than have congress remove him. Finally, Robinson looks at how journalistic and idealogical biases are evident in what is polled, how, when and what numbers actually get reported. One significant omission by Robinson is the misleading use of "margin of error". When sampling, one normally tests a number of items in a sample. Then to ensure that the sample is representative of the whole polulation, another sample of items would be tested. This leads to information about the two samples. One then could infer how representative the samples are to the whole popluation. The short of it is that with only one sample taken (a poll of x number of people) there is no valid way to make any inferences between the sample and the whole population. They found a formula in a statistics textbook and plug in the wrong numbers!All in all, an excellent effort and very interesting. Definitely worth reading.

PW review typical

This book, like another good book, COLORING THE NEWS, will never the see the light of day in most bookstores (shoved into the tiny "public affairs" or "public policy" sections in the back of most stores) should be read by everyone who has believed a news poll or has been polled. Having been polled numerous times (I live in a liberal section of New York so lots of pollers like to get my opinion because they think they've already predicted it based on my income, profession and zipcode), I have found myself unable to answer many questions because the "choice" of answers and their phrasing is designed to obtain a certain response the poller wants to hear. The PW reviewer is wrong about his or her facts, as another reviewer here carefully points out, so it's enough to say that the reviewer is simply having a too-typical knee-jerk reaction to his own politics which are most likely based not on his real opinions (if the reviewer has any) but because in publishing one must think a certain way to get invited to the best parties.

Reviewing the review - Errors in Publishers Weekly review

I didn't read the book - rather I'm commenting on the sophomoric review by the anonymous Publishers Weekly reviewer. I had to rate the book to post this comment so forgive my choice of 5 stars based simply on the silliness of the review. I counted 7 criticisms and negative comments in the review of the book. I'll tackle just 2 of these: The reviewer claims turnout in presidental elections peaked in 1876 rather than 1960. It is true that 82.6% voted in 1876 versus 65.4% in 1960, however, presumably the book's author was discussing the modern age of voting, following the advent of women's suffrage in 1920. For the reviewer not to even consider this huge distinction betrays an enormous prejudice. Modern academic papers discuss the reasons for the drop in turnout since 1960, despite increased SES, which tends to raise turnout. Therefore, the drop since 1960 is the center of a fairly brisk scholarly debate.Secondly, the reviewer claims that the book is wrong to connect voter apathy with the welfare state since Europe has "more robust welfare states" and higher voter turnout. While I can't address the book's claim that welfare is responsible for low voter turnout, a decrease in social connectedness (less married, less church-going), which may be somewhat linked to welfare, is the strongest variable dampening U.S. voting (By the way, the above is not moralizing ... I don't go to church. It's based on scholarly analysis; for example, see Ruy A. Teixeira "The Disappearing American Voter"). Meanwhile, the reasons Europe has greater turnout are varied and not related to a robust welfare state as the reviewer insinuates. Proportional representation (such as in the Netherlands) or direct presidential voting (like in France), increases the benefits of voting. Compulsory voting laws such as in Belgium (94% turnout in the 1980's) and Italy (84% turnout) criminalize the lack of voting, even though the laws are lightly enforced. The legislative makeup makes a difference; for example, Denmark (86%) and Israel (79%) have unicameral systems versus the strong bicameral system in the U.S. Furthermore, voter turnout is increased when there are many political parties since a voter's ballot can be more readily diluted than in the strong two-party system of the U.S.The reviewer refers to the "media's alleged liberal bias (which he asserts but never tries to prove)." For proof of liberal bias, one has only to read the silly Publishers Weekly review of the book.

Intelligent, engaging, provocative and educational

Matthew Robinson's "Mobocracy" is a new and fascinating analysis of the media's obsession with opinion polls, and on media bias and manipulation. Robinson demonstrates how the media effectively use polls as a tool of political persuasion. He details the methodology involved and surveys all the major literature in a scholarly--though engaging--fashion. Informed by an exhaustive understanding of our nation's Founders, Robinson insightfully analyzes and demonstrates the major threat that the media's use of polls fundamentally poses to our constitutional democracy, and to our liberty. This book is a must read for any serious student of American politics.

It's about time

If you've ever had the gut feeling that the media and politicians manipulate polls and polling data, here's the book for you. It documents case after case of such abuse. For instance, I've always been shocked that there aren't more people who support tax cuts ... the reasons why it appears that there isn't broad based support for tax cuts are explained in this book.Matthew Robinson discusses the basics of polling, and clearly explains the difference between responsible and irresponsible polling -- and how irresponsible polls are widely used by the media. He also looks at a great deal of polling data (from tax debates, education reform, and gun control, to elections, presidential approval ratings, and more). The case studies are backed up with a truckload of evidence and great anecdotes. Bernard Goldberg may have exposed the political preferences that exist within newsrooms in his book, Bias, but in Mobocracy, Matthew Robinson shows how editors and journalists abuse their position of power to craft polls and influence results that further their own, narrow, political agenda. If Goldberg exposed the smoking gun of bias in the newsroom, Robinson provides the forensic analysis of the media's preferred ammunition in the war of ideas.