Drama in the Polls: Looking Back at the Advanced Polls Failure in the U.K. Election

By: Dominic Jones

When reading in our textbook Media Matters: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power by John L. Sullivan, I came across the line "Opinion surveys are therefor quite useful as neutral touchstones for political debate" (69).  It made me think back to the U.K. general election earlier this year where Prime Minister David Cameron was re-elected by a large margin, despite advance polls showing his Conservatives being basically tied with the left wing Labour party.

With our own election coming up, I have been very skeptical of any polls for this very reason.  And reading that line in the textbook made me wonder if I should be concerned about other political polls, not about who will win the election but about the public's opinion on various issues.  In the textbook, the history of polling was explored in great detail so it's easy to see why traditional polling is being relied on when it's worked for so long.  

But the U.K shows how the system can be rigged by the pollsters.  I came across an article in the Telegraph from after the election by Dan Hodges, titled "Why did the polls get it wrong at the general election? Because they lied."  In the article Hodges goes over how the polls started off with wide gaps between the parties and the gaps shrunk as the election approached to where it appeared there would be a virtual tie between Labour and the Conservatives.

Hodges argues that polling companies came together to ensure that their numbers were similar, as to not look bad if they all had different results.  He explains the problem with this saying,

"Polls aren’t just used to predict election results, they’re also used to try to influence election results. A few days before polling day the BBC produced an all-singing, all-dancing full page online interactive graphic detailing the “Close constituency battles” it said were “being fought with less than a week to go before the general election”. At the bottom, it carried this small disclaimer. 'Most of the polling shown was commissioned from independent polling companies by former Conservative party deputy chairman and donor Lord Ashcroft. Seven were conducted by Survation on behalf of UKIP donor Alan Bown or trade union Unite. One was carried out by ICM for former Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott.'

If the polling companies don’t want to be regulated, fine. But let’s not pretend we don’t know why they got it wrong on 7 May. Because we do."

Polls are important to both the people and the parties.  We need accurate reflections of what the vote will be.  If companies are going to come together like this and influence results by putting out bad information then shouldn't they be held to the same standards as politicians running.  That if they do wrong by the people they won't get their job back in the next election.  Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

It's not unique to the U.K. either, Hodges points to an article by Nate Silver about a similar occurrence in the 2014 US election.  One can understand why the polling companies would not want to look like the outlier and risk being the only one to get it wrong and would therefore come together.  But when they all get it wrong, then we have an epidemic on our hands.  Once the Canadian election is over, it will be interesting to go back and see not only how accurate were the polls, but how similar were they as well.

Cultivation Theory: Life is Just One Big 'How I Met Your Mother' Reference

By: Dominic Jones

One of the most fascinating theories we have explored in lecture is Cultivation Theory, the idea that people who watch a lot TV it tends to affect their understanding of lived reality.  This jumped out at me because I've often found myself relating real life occurrences to events from television.  One show I would often relate things to was How I Met Your Mother, leading my own mother to tell me on multiple occasions "Life is just one big How I Met Your Mother reference to you, isn't it?"

I'm slightly exaggerating for effect of this theory on me, but it still made me think about the way I view life.  I don't think I'm one of those people who thinks there more crime than there is because I like the show Arrow (or any other action show for that matter), but then again I tend to relate my own experiences (and the experiences of others) to sitcoms so who knows?

Audiences in the News: Stephen Colbert Shuts Down Rowdy Audience During Ted Cruz Interview

By: Dominic Jones

On a recent episode of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert host Stephen Colbert was interviewing controversial US Senator and Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz when his audience got a little rowdy and began booing Cruz.  Colbert ultimately told the audience to stop, as seen in the clip below at around 3:55,

 

What interests me about this is that the late night talk show is usually a venue that encourages a certain level or rowdyness.  Audience members are encouraged to cheer when the stars are introduced and laugh at their jokes and stories.  However, it seems that there is some line that is crossed here where the rowdyism becomes unacceptable.  And that line appears to be booing.  

It begs the question of why rowdyness is acceptable at some times and not at others.  Ultimately it seems to come down to the idea of the upper class wanting to feel safe, as discussed in lecture.  The audience, who are not lower class necessarily (more likely a middle class audience), is a lower class than the celebrities and politicians on stage.  Colbert and Cruz (or whoever may be the guest) represent the upper class and are likely OK with rowdyness when it is positive, but when it becomes negative they may fear for what may happen next.

Much like audiences in the past where the lower class out numbered the upper class, the people in the audience outnumber greatly the two men on stage.  When the rowdyness is positive, the celebrities will feel safe as they are being celebrated.  However, if it becomes negative -as it does in the clip above- Colbert will want to put a cap on it so that things don't get out of hand.  This concern is likely heightened when someone controversial like Senator Cruz is the guest.  Cruz is a far right politician, where as Colbert's audience tends to be left leaning.  It's not hard to imagine a situation where Cruz could be feel threatened if an audience of people who disagree with him are getting rowdy.  From that standpoint, one can understand why Colbert (who likely agrees with the audience members booing Cruz on the issue being discussed) would shut down the negative rowdyness.  As host, it is his responsibility to ensure his guests feel safe, and that means controlling the rowdyness so things don't get out of hand.

Audience Definition

By: Dominic Jones

When searching for a definition of an audience I found that most definitions did not properly reflect what audiences truly are, especially today.  Most sources wanted to differentiate between an audience that is in the same room as a performance or screening and an audience made up of people all watching the same thing from separate locations.  Meriam-Webster, TheFreeDictionary.com, MacMillan Dictionary, and Oxford Dictionaries all made this distinction in their definitions.  Because of this, I settled on the simple definition from WordReference.com as my definition of choice for audience,

audience

the group of people listening to or viewing a public event.

While this may seem overly simplistic, I feel it is the most accurate definition given today's changing landscape.  I feel that an audience is all the people viewing an event, rather than just those in the location.  I believe this especially now due to live broadcasts and streaming of public events.  The practice of broadcasting events live has existed for a long time, through television broadcasts of live sports and other moments of cultural significance.  Whether a person is there in person or not, bears little significance on what they see.  Both "groups" (for lack of a better term) can still relate to and connect over what they just saw.

In some cases, such as TV shows, the only audience is people watching from separate locations.  But even then, all people who watched will be able to connect with and relate to other people who also watched, even though they didn't watch from the same location.

For some anecdotal evidence, last April I attended Star Wars Celebration - a massive fan convention celebration the Star Wars franchise.  There were 60,000 fans in attendance, but a good portion of the convention was also live streamed on YouTube.  One of the events that was live streamed on YouTube was a presentation about the upcoming film Star Wars: The Force Awakens, during which a fully functioning BB-8 droid (a new character from the new movie, pictured right - on stage at Celebration next to R2-D2) rolled out on stage.  A friend of mine couldn't attend Celebration, but was able to experience this moment on the live stream and we were able to discuss our reactions to seeing this happen live even though I was there in person and he was watching for a computer thousands of kilometres away.

While there may be some superficial differences, ultimately everybody watching experiences the same event, whether they are there or not.  "The group of people listening to or viewing a public event" to me has to include those who are not there in person but are watching via television or the internet.  In this day and age where virtually everything is live streamed online, it is foolish to not differentiate between those watching, but not present in person at the event and those who are present at the event.