Evaluating print and broadcast news in the San Francisco Bay Area from A to F.
E-mail to a friend | Printer-friendly version | Discuss story


Knight Ridder misreads its own polls

What's wrong with this headline?

In poll reporting, the margin of error is like the late comic Rodney Dangerfield: It don't get no respect.

On Thursday, Oct. 21, this headline topped the front page of the San Jose Mercury News: "Bush ahead in 7 swing states." Reporting on a set of statewide polls, the Knight Ridder story asserts, "Bush leads in seven states that he carried closely in 2000."

But in the next two paragraphs, the writer contradicts himself: The 1-percentage-point margin between Bush and Kerry in Ohio is "a statistically insignificant difference that means the race is effectively a dead heat."

Mercury News Executive Editor Susan Goldberg defends poll report. See below

One paragraph later the reporter also describes the races in Florida and New Hampshire as "tossups" because the poll results place the candidates only 3 percentage points apart, and the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The poll results are straightforward, even if the writing reverses course. One cannot tell who leads in these three states. The headline and top of the story are misleading because they ignore the margin of error.

The Contra Costa Times, another Knight Ridder newspaper, also carried the poll article, which carried the byline of one of the chain's principal political writers, Steven Thomma.

The problem showed up again the following day in a story by the same author in both Bay Area papers. This time Mr. Kerry was said to have "trailed" Mr. Bush in three "blue" swing states. But a sentence later the claim was contradicted: "All were within the poll's margin of error and remained toss-ups."

If a race is a "toss-up" and the difference in the survey sample is "statistically insignificant," then it's counterfactual to say one party is leading. One can say candidate A is leading in our survey of 650 people. But to say the candidate is leading in the population of several million likely voters is to give the survey more precision than a probability sample can deliver.

It may help to review how probability surveys work.

John McManus

Probability sampling seems almost magical. You talk to just 650 residents of a state like Ohio with 7.8 million registered voters. If everything goes right, there's a 95% chance the true proportion of the millions planning to vote for a candidate will fall within 4 percentage points on either side of the proportion in your small sample who prefer that office-seeker.

So there's a plus-or-minus-4-percentage-point sampling error around the estimate of each candidate's popularity. In Ohio, the sample showed Mr. Bush commanded the allegiance of 46% of likely voters. So he could be the favorite of as many as 50% of population sampled, or as few as 42%. With a sample estimate of 45%, Mr. Kerry could be the choice of 49% or as few as 41%.

The overlap is so great the poll can't tell you who's ahead.

Of the seven states sampled in the Mercury News article, in only one -- Nevada -- does the margin found in the poll exceed the margins of error around each candidate. The poll showed Bush with a 10-percentage-point lead in the Silver State.

The sample mean, Bush's 46% and Kerry's 45%, is the best guess of the true proportion for each candidate in Ohio. But it's only an estimate. There's a declining, but real, chance the true proportion lies toward one or the other end of each candidates' error margin.

Rather than ignoring margins of sampling error, news media should consider them conservative estimates of inaccuracy.

Almost all modern polls are prone to a host of errors. The logic of probability polling depends on every member of the population having an equal chance of being included in the poll. That's almost never the case.

Some people screen out calls from pollsters, or aren't home when they call, or don't speak the poll-takers' language, or aren't included in the list of numbers because they own only a cell phone, or wish to keep their vote a secret. To the extent that those excluded differ from those who answer, the poll loses accuracy.

The wording of polls, the definition of "likely voters," even the order of questions can also introduce bias.

During this campaign season we have seen many polls asking the same question -- for example, "who won the debate?" -- of the same population at the same time, but coming up with answers far outside the margins of sampling error.

Grade the News conducted an analysis of the accuracy of Bay Area and California polls in 2000. We compared the actual difference between the winning and losing candidate or ballot measure with the predictions of the margin of victory in the poll taken closest to Election Day. We found fewer than half the poll predictions fell within their stated margins of error multiplied by two. The analysis was designed by Warren Mitofsky, one of the nation’s most respected and veteran pollsters.

Given these problems, reporters ought not place too much faith in any single poll. Averaging is a good idea. Paying attention to trends is another. In the Knight Ridder story, the reporter notes that earlier polls showed Bush with a likely lead. Kerry's rising numbers should have raised a further warning flag about the president's "lead.".

Mercury News editor Rich Ramirez has acknowledged the error and promised a correction. We have alerted Chris Lopez, managing editor of the Times and will post any reply he may provide.

Related Story: Washington Post pollster discusses poll accuracy

Mercury News defends poll reporting

The poll story that we ran on Thursday, Oct. 21 reported two things:
1. That Knight Ridder conducted a poll that showed someone was ahead.
2. That the differences between the two candidates in most of the states
polled was too small to be statistically significant, because it was
within the margin of error.

These are both accurate statements and NOT contradictory. The poll said
the candidate was ahead; we said the difference between the candidate and
his opponent was too small to be of great significance. I believe readers
are smart enough to absorb this information accurately.

In an election this close, most polls in the contested states are going to
be within the margin of error. Yet, for all their flaws -- and there are
many -- polls do give some indication of what may be happening. They are
not predictive. They don't say what's going to happen on election day.

They reflect only what a group of people told a pollster at the moment he
or she called. Is that perfect? Heck no, far from it. But it does provide
a clue to the thoughts of what clearly is a fluid electorate.

I believe these nuances were captured in the story. What is more difficult
for us is a headline that does not do as well capturing nuance, though the
deck head -- "But leads not solid in several battlegrounds he won in 2000
election" -- certainly helps.

I'm sure that after this election, there will be stories written that "the
polls were wrong." Again. And perhaps some of them were. Others may turn
out to be wrong even if they were right when they were taken. They're
polls -- not results. Clearly, I have more confidence than you that people
are smart enough to understand that distinction.

What do you think? Discuss it in The Coffeehouse.


A project of the School of Journalism and Mass Communications at San Jose State University, Grade the News is affiliated with the Graduate Program in Journalism at Stanford University and KTEH, public television in Silicon Valley.

Monitoring the Bay Area's most popular news media:

Contra Costa Times

Knight Ridder

San Francisco Chronicle


San Jose Mercury News

Knight Ridder

KTVU, Oakland (FOX)

KTVU, Oakland (FOX)

KRON, San Francisco

KRON, San Francisco

KPIX, San Francisco (CBS)

KPIX, San Francisco (CBS)

KGO, San Francisco (ABC)

KGO, San Francisco (ABC)

KNTV, San Jose (NBC)

KNTV, San Jose (NBC)


Bay Area media advocates:

Media Alliance
Center for the Integration and Improvement of Journalism at SFSU
Maynard Institute
Youth Media Council
Project Censored
New California Media
Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California chapter
National Writers Union Bay Area chapter

Site highlights


The three-part series follows the rise of three Bay Area handouts:
• Part 1: At free dailies, advertisers sometimes call the shots
• Part 2: Free daily papers: more local but often superficial
• Part 3: Free papers' growth threatens traditional news
• See also: SF Examiner and Independent agree to end payola restaurant reviews
• And: The free tabloid that wasn't: East Bay's aborted Daily Flash


Lou Alexander started a firestorm with his original guest commentary predicting the company would be sold. Several other experts on newspapers have weighed in:
Newspapers can't cut their way back into Wall Street investors' hearts, by Stephen R. Lacy; Alexander responds
Humbler profits won't encourage buyouts, by John Morton; Alexander responds
Newspapers can't maintain monopoly profits because they've lost their monopolies, by Philip Meyer
Knight Ridder in grave jeopardy, by Lou Alexander...


Leakers and plumbers: There's no difference between a good leak and a bad leak? Journalists need a shield law. 11/22/05
Unintended consequences: How Craigslist and similar services are sucking revenue from faltering newspapers. 9/13/05
Is CPB irrelevant? As Congress moves to cut public broadcasting funds, has CPB become obsolete in the modern marketplace. 6/26/05
The paradox of news: There's more news available and its cheaper than ever before, but fewer young people are interested. 5/12/05


Most recent updatesHow the Bay Area's most popular media stack up.Talk about Bay Area journalism in our on-line discussion forum. A printable news scorecard you can use at home or in school. Raves and rants aimed at the local media. What would you do if you were the editor? Upcoming happenings and calls for public action. Let 'em know! Contact a local newsroom.Codes of ethics, local media advocates and journalism tools. Tip us off about the local media, or tell us how we're doing.Oops.A comprehensive list of past GTN exclusives.