"Remember Building 7" poll backfires, despite the spin

Triterope said:
Depends on context. If you're an American visiting Prague, and somebody asks you where you're from, your answer is more likely to boil down to "New York City" because the person asking isn't going to know what Weehawken is. If you're at a party in Brooklyn, then, yeah, you'll say Weehawken.

Someone receiving a call from a polling company does not know if the question is being asked in a national context or a local one. We know the poll was of New Yorkers, but the respondent doesn't know that. That was the larger point: that the question is poorly worded. If they want to limit respondents to those eligible to vote in a future NYCCAN ballot initiative, then they need to say "New York City proper" or words to that effect. The even larger point is that the question "where did you live in 2001?" seems to serve no purpose.

I'll grant you that I could have picked a better example. I was thinking more of other large American cities where people identify more with the metro area name than where they physically reside because (a) relatively few people live in the city proper; (b) there are myriad unremarkable suburbs; and (c) people aren't as neighborhood-conscious as New Yorkers tend to be. Atlanta comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Your explanation is reasonable, but I respectfully disagree. I was born in NYC (Queens) and raised in NJ. I've lived on both US coasts and travelled extensively outside the US, so I've been asked probably hundreds of times where I'm from. I've always said, born in Queens, raised in NJ because if you say I'm from NY, people will assume you lived in Manhattan, which I never have.

Why do you find the question so irrelevant? The poll was just determining how many respondents lived in one of the boroughs, and other demographics. I suppose all they were trying to show is that this poll is drawn from those who were in closest proximity to the WTC attacks.
 
RedIbis said:
Your explanation is reasonable, but I respectfully disagree. I was born in NYC (Queens) and raised in NJ. I've lived on both US coasts and travelled extensively outside the US, so I've been asked probably hundreds of times where I'm from. I've always said, born in Queens, raised in NJ because if you say I'm from NY, people will assume you lived in Manhattan, which I never have.

Why do you find the question so irrelevant? The poll was just determining how many respondents lived in one of the boroughs, and other demographics. I suppose all they were trying to show is that this poll is drawn from those who were in closest proximity to the WTC attacks.
Click to expand...

Are you really defending this joke of a poll?

It is so pathetically dishonest that I guess I am not surprised.
 
RedIbis said:
Your explanation is reasonable, but I respectfully disagree. I was born in NYC (Queens) and raised in NJ. I've been asked probably hundreds of times where I'm from. I've always said, born in Queens, raised in NJ because if you say I'm from NY, people will assume you lived in Manhattan, which I never have.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. What I was trying to illustrate may not be applicable to New York City as it is to metro areas I'm more familiar with. Still, the pollsters should be a little more clear and say "NYC proper" if that's what they mean. But I think we're in close enough agreement on this matter now.

RedIbis said:
Why do you find the question so irrelevant? The poll was just determining how many respondents lived in one of the boroughs, and other demographics.
Click to expand...

Because they don't do anything with it. Responses to the other questions are broken down by age, gender, political leaning and so forth. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of answers based on whether or not the respondent personally witnessed the attacks. In other words, does having been there make you more or less likely to know about the other skyscrapers falling? But they don't do that. So it's not really a demographic question.

I suppose all they were trying to show is that this poll is drawn from those who were in closest proximity to the WTC attacks.
Click to expand...
My point exactly: it doesn't show that. It shows how many of their respondents lived in New York City in 2001. That is not the same as having been near the attacks. You can be one, the other, both, or neither. So if that's what they're getting at, this question does a poor job of ascertaining it.

I would ask the question open-endedly: "Where were you on September 11, 2001?" Then, if necessary, the followup "would you say you personally witnessed the World Trade Center attacks?" That would give you a much more precise answer.

And if NYCCAN just wants to know how much resident turnover there has been in NYC proper since 2001 -- something a ballot initiative group might want to know -- the U.S. Census publishes that sort of data for free.
 
Triterope said:
Fair enough. What I was trying to illustrate may not be applicable to New York City as it is to metro areas I'm more familiar with. Still, the pollsters should be a little more clear and say "NYC proper" if that's what they mean. But I think we're in close enough agreement on this matter now.



Because they don't do anything with it. Responses to the other questions are broken down by age, gender, political leaning and so forth. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of answers based on whether or not the respondent personally witnessed the attacks. In other words, does having been there make you more or less likely to know about the other skyscrapers falling? But they don't do that. So it's not really a demographic question.

My point exactly: it doesn't show that. It shows how many of their respondents lived in New York City in 2001. That is not the same as having been near the attacks. You can be one, the other, both, or neither. So if that's what they're getting at, this question does a poor job of ascertaining it.

I would ask the question open-endedly: "Where were you on September 11, 2001?" Then, if necessary, the followup "would you say you personally witnessed the World Trade Center attacks?" That would give you a much more precise answer.

And if NYCCAN just wants to know how much resident turnover there has been in NYC proper since 2001 -- something a ballot initiative group might want to know -- the U.S. Census publishes that sort of data for free.
Click to expand...

One of the answers for Q6 is "By witnessing it - Present at the time."
 
RedIbis said:
One of the answers for Q6 is "By witnessing it - Present at the time."
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you on question #1.

With all BS aside, How do you feel this poll coincides with the efforts of "NYCCAN" (or whatever it is)?

What's your take on their efforts? Really

:)
 
DGM said:
I tend to agree with you on question #1.

With all BS aside, How do you feel this poll coincides with the efforts of "NYCCAN" (or whatever it is)?

What's your take on their efforts? Really

:)
Click to expand...

I'm really not all that familiar with the organization and the long saga of the ballot initiative. I took a look at their website. Nothing struck me as too radical. It looks like some family members trying to get an independent investigation. Is there something you think I should look at in particular?
 
RedIbis said:
I'm really not all that familiar with the organization and the long saga of the ballot initiative. I took a look at their website. Nothing struck me as too radical. It looks like some family members trying to get an independent investigation. Is there something you think I should look at in particular?
Click to expand...
Not really. Kind of my feelings on their efforts. They have spent a lot of money, for no one to be paying attention. I'm sure Gage is pleased with their efforts.
:rolleyes:
 
RedIbis said:
I'm really not all that familiar with the organization and the long saga of the ballot initiative. I took a look at their website. Nothing struck me as too radical. It looks like some family members trying to get an independent investigation. Is there something you think I should look at in particular?
Click to expand...

A self-appointed body with extrajudicial law enforcement powers and immunity from any government oversight doesn't strike you as radical?

Here's the text of the petition (which is oddly difficult to find). Scroll down within Arabesque's post.

Here's an old thread in which it was discussed. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the letter explaining why it was rejected.
 
NYCCAN is welcome to do their own. Just don't ask for money or cooperation from anyone in the government. We've discussed this many times before.
 
RedIbis said:
Why should there be gov't oversight for an independent investigation?
Click to expand...
A group of folks gets to poke around in anything, everywhere, answers to no one, has complete authority, can be from anywhere in the world and each of the "commissioners" gets $112.5 large, annually, plus expenses - really?
 
RedIbis said:
Why should there be gov't oversight for an independent investigation?
Click to expand...

The investigation would acquire its powers from government. Therefore it is not independent.

They want it both ways. They are petitioning the government to grant them powers to compel testimony, appoint prosecutors, indict people, and have the same rights as special prosecutors, but they want to be exempt from any government oversight.

Come on man, this is sixth-grade civics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom