Polls are nonsense - the modern equivalent of throwing monkey bones and searching through chicken entrails.

Geoff Alford, you are evidently a professional with a passion for your work, and high ethical standards. Good on you. I hope many follow your example.

I take it you expect others in your profession to do exactly that, and you admonish them when they don't. Hear hear.

But expecting politicians to do the same is naive. They aren't pollsters. They don't care about designing finely balanced questions that illuminate the will of the people. It is after all the pollsters job to do that, not the politicians.

The politicians job is to try to drive public perceptions in a direction he thinks will lead us to the best outcome. We expect them to do it, and we know they will try to do it by fair means or foul. For the most part we forgive them for the foul bits, unless they get really on the nose. And when it comes to "getting on the nose", asking leading questions in a poll doesn't even come close. Really, I would be disappointed if they didn't attempt it on occasion to see if they could get away with it. If they don't they are simply not trying hard enough. Expressing outrage when they do it is over the top. You are wasting your time.

On the other hand, publicising that you competitor leaked some poll results - well done. Keep 'em honest.

pollsters get it more right than wrong
where there is a large disparty you will allways find voting fraud

The diebold voting machines is a case of proof, seems you can program them by simply installing a program
[who would have thunk it]
do the research ,poling figures are a science [its only when they try to cover the margin of fraud do they lose respect]

Much depends upon the honesty of the questions posed [ you can get any result you like by asking the push/poling questions, the order of the questions , but as a science polling gets the truth [as long as they are poling for the truth
BUT often they arnt.

Hence polititions are making bad laws based on flawed polling, poling not determined to get the truth but that the law[or]act is passed into law ,much depends on what the questions are asking
[take marijuana [its a registered trademark owned by bayer-corp]

but
has been villified under the lie of marijuanna [describing a poor product[trade/lable ] not the plant or the truth about the plant

but
where ever that word is inserted you get an auto-bias against the buzz/word based on the lies diseminated upon the world via media driven fear campains aganst a people and their medicine plant

That treats everything from high blood presure , arthritus, eating disorders and cures cancer ,
as well as able to supply our oil , paper and fibre needs sustainsably and perpetually ,
makes anything from plastic to food ,

and would only need to be grown on ONE QUATER the land clearfelled LAST YEAR ALONE to replace completly the woodchipping industry based on trees [using only one/quater the chemicals to create the end product]

noting cotton alone,
uses half the WORLDS supply of fertilisers AND pesticides
for one non food crop
[hemp dosnt need any]

I will add my own post.

Where is the reply (or apology) from Nielsen or Michelle Grattan? Or is it too embarassing? As I said, it was a front page Age story, but the Age would not print my Letter to the Editor, giving me pitiful excuses.

Make your own judgments on the integrity of journalists and pollsters, and the fearless independence of Fairfax publications.

geoffalford

Polling, well done and with checks and balances, can be a useful democratic tool. It is useful to know what the populace is thinking. That is, only if the polling is done professionally and reported professionally.

The case in point, petrol pricing, was indeed a crass one.

The problems with media reporting of polling are many and varied. Too often the precise question is not reported, and the lead-up questions are often not reported. Then there is the blind need for many to side with the majority, so polling creates as much opinion as it measures it.

Of course nobody want to pay more for petrol, that includes me who believes that high fuel prices are a good thing - full reflective costing of fuel is what is needed. There is a conflict between the hip pocket and what I know is good policy. So if I was polled on the issue with a simple question I can not give a simple answer - in fact my simple yes/no answer has to be a distortion.

Those with big money can afford to spend up big on market research and polling, knowing that they can use the information judiciously and cunningly to favour their commercial or political interest.

I would like to see strict media standards introduced on the reporting of polling, so that it is not able to be reported unethically.

From Yes Minister...

Humphrey: You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: " Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"

Bernard: Yes

Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"

Bernard: Yes

Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"

Bernard: Yes

Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"

Bernard: Yes

Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"

Bernard: Yes

Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"

Bernard: Oh...well, I suppose I might be.

Humphrey: "Yes or no?"

Bernard: Yes

Humphrey: Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told her you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.

Bernard: Is that really what they do?

Humphrey: Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.

Bernard: How?

Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"

Bernard: Yes

Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"

Bernard: Yes

Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"

Bernard: Yes

Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"

Bernard: Yes

Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"

Bernard: Yes

Humphrey: There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample