I don't know about you, but those focus groups with their instant responses on the screen are driving me nuts. I want the Commission on Presidential Elections to outlaw them next time -- well, it's four years away, but still.... in the second presidential debate I could not keep my eyes off CNN's green and orange lines of men and women responding to the debate second by second. I even thought I could make some sweeping generalizations about the way men and women react to different topics. (It turns out that the only valid take-away was that women seem to react more quickly than men. But any other generalizations are pretty weak.) Bottom line -- it's distracting and completely unscientific to boot.
Nate Silver has a great piece in his website today on the squigglies as he calls them. Focus groups of thirty people are, of course, nearly completely unrepresentative of the voting public at large. They are not randomly selected. They are often paid for their participation. They are not geographically representative. And the potential for one strong participant to influence the others is a factor that distorts the responses. As we watch the debates, we too are influenced by the response lines, and after the debate is over, the influence of these small groups increases disproportionately.
As Nate says:
The problem is that the squigglys may give thirty random strangers from Bumbleweed, Ohio just too damned much power to influence public perception. The squigglys influence the home viewers, the home viewers participate in the snap polls, the snap polls influence the pundits, the pundits influence the narrative and -- voilà! -- perceptions are entrenched.
We are sold the value of focus groups by the TV networks, and indirectly by the Commission on Presidential Elections because they allow them, without being told all the reasons why we should pay no attention to them. Focus groups may be useful for marketing purposes, because the group can be led to a conclusion about cereal or milk that helps the product manufacturer sell more of that product. But what we are almost never told by the networks, is that the quick answer and reaction is "thin sliced", as Malcolm Gladwell would say in his book Blink.. It's a off the top of my head kind of response, whose value is only as good as the top of your head.
All the networks and cable channels are doing focus groups now, so I suppose it is too much to ask them to stop this, but I'd like to give it a try. Please, spare us the embarrassment of listening to people who are still undecided about this election and whose opinions, much like those of Joe the Plumber only represent a n of one person -- themselves.
The answer, of course, is to watch the debates on C-Span. That may be a fine solution for some, but there will be millions still watching on Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC and CNN -- all who will be treated to the instant responses of a group of people who most likely know even less than we do about the issues.
I understand the part of your objection that says the groups aren't chosen "scientifically" BUT neither are the professional political pundits and they have held an enormously disproportionate influence on the American electorate for YEARS.
Where was your (or Nate Silver's) objection to THAT?!?
Personally, I have been absolutely THRILLED that the focus groups and "squigglies" have reduced the MSM to mere observers of people's reactions rather than trying to tell us that what THEY saw was more important that what WE saw, shaping and spinning public opinion to their own perception filters.
If you don't like this system, Ms. Bergthold, I respectfully suggest that you consider the possibility that is the loss of YOUR influence that makes you so opposed to the current influence of this new process.
Make it better? Yes. Of course.
But do away with it? NO WAY! (Just one very happy voter's opinion of the blow the focus groups have dealt to the enormous power of the MSM.)
CNN = Cursory
"So have you made up your minds about a candidate or would you like to appear on national television again during the next debate?"
I mean some of their panel from the first debate hung on to the end and I had to ask myself is this just so they can get their 15 minutes?
channel changer.
The rest of us, we can switch to a different channell if we don't like the squiggles.
You should get your money back on your TV purchase.
As for all the other comments about the influence of the pundits, it is what it is. They're there and they are going to keep punditing. That is the only reason why the focus groups are helpful, in my opinion. They do focus on different things from the pundits and it causes the pundits to consider their "thin-sliced" thoughts a little more carefully...maybe.
Don't watch CNN.
I like the sqiqqly lines...it was interesting to see that negative is not a winner...and that women are quicker then men. Also that on some things men's reactions are totally opposite of women's. I find it to be interesting.
Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore
LOndon, England.
Whatever next, it shouldn't be allowed!
Focus groups and snap polls may be annoying, but other people's opinions usually are; the point is that they provide a space for those opinions. And in our media environment, I think that the more points of view, the better.
"As Nate says:
The problem is that the squigglys may give thirty random strangers from Bumbleweed, Ohio just too damned much power to influence public perception. The squigglys influence the home viewers, the home viewers participate in the snap polls, the snap polls influence the pundits, the pundits influence the narrative and -- voilà! -- perceptions are entrenched."
Yeah....just like the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire voters have too damned much power to influence the Democratic party...after all ResumeSpeed,IA is SO much like the rest of America.......the Party, the media, the bloggers (!) all put too much on the 18 farmers from ResumeSpeed who show up on a Monday night in Feb....uh, make that Jan...oops...make that December to dictate who gets to bat in the next game....
This makes my head hurt....:-)
Just like the focus group members these folks are not party activists...they go to one meeting every four years....white, middle-age farmers from Iowa....oh yeah...THERE is a real cross section of America....bah
BHJ the erudite socialist