captain andrew -- captain tyler lowe. captain blake -- last but not least, captain jessica wagner.

[applause] >> the ceremonial party can take their seats. i just have a few close remarks on corey wagner, the director of the rescue initiative. colonel dejesse and i have so many colleagues partners to thank. you will find thanks and acknowledgments on the last page of the program. have a read of that. i would like to thank and recognize my partner, scott dejesse.

he started the journey with me many years ago. i also want to thank many of our colleagues. they have supported it training. they have pushed through the orders. they have got people quickly into their units. this was all done during the whole thing of covid. thank you to you. i also want to give a special thanks to the smithsonian cultural rescue staff. they have supported this vision for such a long time. other smithsonian staff supported the training. they worked hard to realize this important program. i want to thank my boss for believing in the aid and supporting us 100%. my heartfelt thanks to my husband, paul wagner. he has supported my dream for this course.

he continued to support everything as a volunteer and chief logistics training officer. [applause] -- present the 2022 class of the officers. [applause] >> weekends on c-span two are an intellectual feast. every saturday, american history tv documents america story. and on sundays, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction

books and authors. funding for c-span two comes from these television companies and more. including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications, along with these television companies, supports c-span 2 as a public service. >> middle and high school students, it's time to get out your phones and start recording! for your chance to win $100,000 in total cash prizes, with a grand prize of $5,000. by entering c-span student cam documentary contest. for this year's competition, we're asking students to picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress and tell us what your top priority would be and why. create a 5 to 6 minute video showing the importance of your

issue from opposing and supporting points of view. the bold with your documentary, don't be afraid to take risks. the is still time to get started. the deadline for entries as january 20th, 2023. for competition rules and tips on how to get, started visit our website at student cam.org. ng an d>> good morning, everybody. a warm welcome to everyone today. it's good to see you all. today, we're going to take up the long and fitful, an easy relationship but tween that news media and election polling. will consider a number of specific cases today. in the context of presidential elections, that for whatever reason, the polls didn't get right. the polls went wrong. we'll also consider factors that may explain the easing of poll bashing among american journalists.

much of the content in today's lecture is drawn from my most recent book, lost in a gallup, pulling failure in u.s. presidential elections. here are some names that were going to be mentioning during the next it of time. edward r. murrow, a legendary broadcast journalist in the 50s and 60s, even the 40s. who worked for cbs news, had a lengthy and storied career for cbs news. another name will here is that of eric sevareid, a commentator for a long period of time for cbs news on television. the cbs news evening report. another name will encounter is mike roy co-. ryka was a prominent journalist in chicago, a columnist who was regarded as chicago's most witty, ornery observer, news

observer. ariana huffington is another name that will encounter. she was a founder of huffington post huffpost now and a former syndicated columnist,,. haynes johnson of the washington post is yet another name link counter today. i as is jimmy breslin, a celebrated writer and columnist for newspapers in new york city. each of these journalists was prominent in some fashion. in print or broadcast media. as we shall see, all of them were suspicious about election polling. even hostile, even vehemently hostile of election polling. all of them can be called poll bashers. vigorous, even harsh critics of elections surveys. in considering poll bashing journalists, we will touch on presidential elections of 1948,

1952, 1980, 2008, 2016 and 2020. the polls in each of those election were off target in some, fashion's i'm way. as we've discussed, pulling failure doesn't always happen the same way. in any case, these cases that will touch on today sparked confusion, surprise, even disillusionment. and no small embarrassment for pollsters. so, let's get going. but step back 70 years to the election of 1952. it was the first presidential election after the pulling debacle of 1948. pollsters then, in 1948, had confidently predicted the victory of republican thomas dewey, then governor of new york state, in an election with

harry truman, the incumbent president. truman won in an upset that no pollster anticipated. no pundit anticipated. in the news media did not anticipate either. it was a shock, a shock election. in 1952, pollsters and evidently were pretty wary. they were pretty cautious in their projections. in their estimates about how this race was going to go win. in fact, they were so cautious that one humor columnist for a newspaper said, a tie would suit them fine. that the pollsters would be satisfied if the election turned out to be a tie. they were that cautious, that wary. that race in 1950, to 70 years ago, pitted at american war hero named general dwight eisenhower against the governor of illinois, at least

stephenson. at least stephenson. the polling indicated that this race was so close that a could be won by any candidate, could go either way. a narrow election was anticipated by the polls, as this article about the gallup poll suggests. despite the re-quid occasion, the pollsters, as they often do, set the agenda. set the agenda for the news media and others on for the election in 1952. the expectation was a tight race between eisenhower and sequencing. that's not how it turned, out that's not how it turned out. eisenhower wanted a landslide that no post or anticipated. indeed, almost no pundit anticipated a landslide. he won, eisenhower carried the

popular vote by almost 11 percentage points and received more than 440 electoral votes. it was a crushing landslide for the republican candidate, eisenhower. pollsters were confused as to what happened, trying to come up with explanations in the immediate aftermath of the surprise. it seems that undecided voters were a major factor in the polling surprise of 1952. in that, there was a substantial number of people responding to the polls saying that they did not know we there going to vote for. eisenhower, stevenson. so, that undecided vote was and under some difficult proposition for the pollsters. in the sense that, how do you allocate the undecided vote? do you split it in half? do you give both to one candidate or the other? do you ignore it all together? it's a conundrum. it was a conundrum for

pollsters in 1952. gallup, george gallup of the gallup pole, decided to allocate the undecided voters in a way that resembled allocation of undecided voters on the two previous presidential elections. in 1944 and 1948. and one scenario, he said those undecided voters are going to break 2 to 1 for the democrat, adlai stevenson. in another scenario, he said it would be 3 to 1 for the democrat adlai stevenson. and that latter scenario, you come up with a 50/50 tie. a 50/50 tie. why the undecided voters may have swung to dwight eisenhower late in the campaign was his pledge, in late october 1952, to go to korea. go to korea. then the scene of a long

protracted stalemate of a war between the united states, its south korean allies and the north koreans and the chinese. that war had begun in 1950. and by late 52, had settled into a stalemate. eisenhower, a war hero from world war ii, suggested that he was going to go. in, fact stated openly that he would go to korea to seek a way to end the stalemate, and the conflict, and the bloodletting. that announcement may have been enough to tip most of the undecided voters in his direction. in any, case the undecided vote and how to allocate undecided voters was a difficult situation for the pollsters in 1952. criticism about the outcome was weathering. a newspaper and masshutts, the berkshire county eagle,

said the pollsters were unable to tell a tidal wave from a photo finish. as i rd in my book, i lostn a gallup, journalist took no small satisfaction in the post or his faire in1952. edward r. murrow, a broadcast legend, with cbs news, said in the daafter the election that the people surprise the pollsters, prophets, and many politicians. they demonstrated, the people demonstrated, he said, as they had in 1948, that they are mysterious they're not meant to be measured by mechanical means. doubting that polling had the ability to define what americans really thought. this sentiment edward r. murrow resonated throughout the news media in 1852 and beyond.

a newspaper in denton, texas, picked up on that the even said, the outcome may be discouraging news for pollsters, but we like the independents demonstrated by the voters. the american voter, this newspaper said in its editorial, is an independent critic. it was not 1952 when coal bashing a rejuvenated, but the outcome of that election intensify the sentiment, this tendency, among prominent journalists. after all, the polls had misfired and back-to-back presidential elections. 1948, 1952. this lens, and there are different reasons for the pole failure in those two elections. this lent a distinct impression that polls were imprecise and unreliable.

in addition, the notion was widespread among journalists that polling was just a presumptuous pastime, and posed in unwarranted intrusion in the life and thinking of american that american voters. these arguments maintain that americans were just too complex, idiosyncratic, for their views to be accurately captured by opinion polls, by survey research. so in a way, polling failure was seen perversely, perhaps, as a triumph of the individual and, individual. critics of election polling, included morrow and others. and others. and 1964, eric sever i, a

commentator for cbs news, acknowledged and a newspaper article that he had a secret plea and really when the polls go wrong. he said the reasons for his feelings were obvious. we hate, he said, to have the mystery, and suspense, of human behavior eliminated by clinical deception. in other words, the polls presume they were able to divide what american thought. he thought that this was an unwarranted intrusion. eric several. in time, pull bashing among journalist became more vigorous, more vehement, and more hostile. micro cow, who were chicago's best known journalist, he was a columnist for the chicago tribun after many years as a columnist for the chicago someme

we're go,n the mid 1980s, melted a noisy cpaign, encouraging his readers to live a pollster should they ever be under ew by exit pollsters. an exit pollar conducted on elecon day, our polling places, as voters leave afte casting ballots. they areppached by exit pollsters. this is changeinecent years, and sex to posts u a little more than just that, they try to reach voters who have already voted, and early voting. now, or back, than they were still being interviewed, voters were interviewed, are they left the polling place, after having voted. so rock is urging his readers to light pollsters. he wrote this in 1984. that urging people to lie has been what appears you

constructive civic endeavors he's probably already fine and she kara. he says the encouragement bend voters toieo pollsters is to try to mass a polling results to have the announcement of the exit polls on television projected incorrectly of course, all of this was somewhat naive, because not even work out and the reach that he had amongst chicagoans back in his day, then ladies, could influenc enough people, for interviewed by ex a pollsters, which is only a small number of people, to mess up the exit polls so it wasn't really going to happen that way. nonetheless, his, his encouragement, his columns, his pull busting columns, were

remembered and cited years after the fact at a national convention of a four, which is the american association for public opinion research it' the leading organization of survey research, the president, then president of a poor, invoked the columns, and said how can we expect the public to take our work seriously when some of our opinion leaders, like royko are tro make a mockery of that? so his lying to pollsters advice resonated and lived on 30 years later, 30 years after. even more improbable and adamant campaign led by ariana hopping ten, a founder of huffington post, formerly a syndicated columnist as well.

e lied what she called a campaign fora potpourri america. poll for aerial air gonna. by that she meant that she wanted people to takeand no poll pledge, and tohang up on pollster should they call. or, if people were not able to hang up, they should lie to them. anything to contaminate the sample and demonstrate how unreliable polls are. lighter pollsters. the nopal pledge. very colourfully, she described polina's havg become a stens, and regarded with the same sort of reverence as ancient roman's gave to chicken on trails. eventually, her pull bashing

campaign faded away. and fact, huffington post, in 20can acquired appalling aggregator called pollster.com. this caused a shift in her views about pulling a little bit, saying at that time, polling, whether we like it or, not is a big part of how we communicate about politics. another persistent and perhaps even more prominent poll bashir was keynes johnson. and national correspondent for the washington post. james johnson. he says in an interview with c-span that he wish that we could disband all polls. let me play a brief clip. from that interview.

>> i wish we were to spend all polls. i hate the balls. i mean, we rely on them. i've used, them cited them, i've gone out, got healthy, don't pulling myself. knocked on doors and so forth. i think we make too much of polls. >> i think we make too much of polls. on another occasion, he said the polls are no substitute for a hard reporting, for street reporting, by journalist, to get out and talk to people. haynes johnson was both a practitioner and an advocate of what is called shoe level journalism. shoe leather journalism. this essentially means, getting out of the office, talking to people, doing interviews, getting a sense of trans through these qualitative

measures. . . so intense, supposedly, then you begin to wear out the souls of your shoes. she love their journalism. shoe level reporting. for example, in the fall of 1980, haynes johnson crisscross the country, going to places as diverse as boston, a youngster now ohio. he interviewed, and wrote long, long articles for the washington post, that the post called portraits of america. that discussed americans concerns, disillusionments, apprehensions, troubles, in 1980. more than 40 years ago. in his travels, johnson sometimes neared at polls, and pollsters, say he dislike polls because they were unable to

pick up the complexities of people. echoing the sentiments expressed by our borough, generation -- fail to pick up the complexities of people, and their opinions. and 1980, someone like 1952, the polls projected, anticipated estimates, a close race between ronald reagan, the republican, and jimmy carter, the incumbent president. and near the end of the campaign, although he did not of his articles offer an estimate as to who was likely to win the election of 1980, he johnson was asked on a television program for his appraisal of the race. he gave this answer. i really don't know, he said i think all my bones tell me that reagan is going to win, but i think some, how carter is going to slip through and win

reelection. based on his intensive interviews, crisscrossing the country during the fall campaign. carter is going to slip through. in an outcome that resembled, in some respects, 1952, the outcome of 1952, ronald reagan won in the near landslide. he defeated jimmy carter by nearly ten percentage points. an outcome that pollsters did not anticipate. r detains johnson. heid not dwell much on his miss prediction in the aftermatofhe 1980 election. and said, he said that in a news aic, reporters would have bn tter served by relying on their own instincts, their own legwork. this in turn -- political instincts, rather than the presumably scientific

samples offer by pollsters. the surprise outcome of 1980 left pollsters bickering amongst themselves quite openly. this is quite unusual. disputes amongst pollsters tend to be more private, more quiet, more low level. not so much in the 1980s. they brokered about how things got so wrong. one of the disputes was whether there was this late in the campaign shift of support of reagan from carter. or not. some pollster side, yeah, that explains. other said, that's nonsense, we did not see such a shift late in the campaign. really, it's still kind of, years later, somewhat unresolved. the standard explanation is yes, there was a shift to ronald reagan, late in a campaign, b it was a disputed analysis it

was not embrace unanimously. it inspired editorial cartoosts to. the polling failure of 1980 -- the philadelphia inquirer, to put together this fairly imaginative, and a bit insulting, editorial cartoons for the philadelphia inquirer. the notion upholsterer somewhat akin to you sorcerers making all sorts of witches brew, if you, l resonated and found expression many years later. in 2004, commentator on fox news program, news watch, named jim pinkerton, said in a program that polls are accurate and precise is human nature, which is to say, they are not accurate, and they are not precise. this practice, he said, is

witchcraft. the 2004 presidential election probably represented the zenith, or he, well there in a deer, a poll national monks journalist. that here, jimmy breslin, a well-known and regarded, celebrated, columnist, play right, in new york city, took on a campaign late in the race to chastise polls. on one occasion, calling them cheap, aningless, playing lies. jiy breslin's complaint was that pollsters were not interviewing voters with cell phones, who had given up their land lines and borderline primarily on cell phones. that number was fairly small. of cell phone early ters back

into the thousand and four. he has since become overwhelming. many people have given up their land mines for cell phone only news. not so much in 2004. pollsters, he was, right did not generally call cell phone numbers. they were complications, federal regulations, seemed to impede that practice. pollsters nowadays to call self. thousands in, fact most people, pollsters who are using the funds in any fashion for their falling, are calling more self numbers than they are landline members. in any case, this is present principle complaint. he said they're failing to pick up, and failing to interview people who are probably younger, and more likely to vote for the democratic candidate in 2004, john kerry. on election day, 2004, breslin writes best. i am not even going to bother to watch the results on television. i'm going to bet early.

besides, he wrote, with typical lost air, if i was up, so many people upon seen every word i said at this election coming true, would because he my hands and embarrassing me with outlandish praise. jimmy wrestling. and election day call, in 2004. john kerry -- by a 2.5 percentage point. it was a close election. pivoted on the outcome of ohio. this narrowly went to george bush. amid some dispute, amid some dispute about that. so, why all of this periodic poll bashing amongst journalists? what explains this tendency that we've seen in the years in the past? edward r. murrow is a legendary, a legendary broadcast

journalist. 40s, 50s, 60s. haynes johnson, mike boyko, jimmy breslin, all of these were hollow to prize winners one-time next career. they were respected journalist. so what factors explain cross generational full bashing. i'll offer three factors. one is that polling is record of unreliability, and inaccuracy, made it an easy target for journalists. prominent journalist, picking on the poles, if you are. calling them out for their mistakes, their misfires, their errors. another factor, which we've seen from burrow to haynes johnson is a dislike of the presumption, the

presumptive-ness of polling. by that i mean, the police seem to say, and does say, in many respects, that we can figure out what americans are thinking. we can figure out what the preferences are. this is a procedure that can do, that that can detect what americans are thinking. a lot of journalists over the years, and problems with that. they resented the presumptions, the presumptive-ness of the poll. also, holding represented a direct challenge to shoo love their journalism. to shoe leather reporting, which we discussed a moment ago. this is journalistic, direct observation, out of the office, talking to people, doing what haynes johnson did, for example, for many election cycles. crisscrossing the country, talking to people about their inclinations, preferences in terms of politics, and how this was likely to influence the outcome of the election. getting out of the office, talking to people.

this is the fundamental element of shoe leather journalism. it still exists, still exist. it's still celebrated. immediate circles. so, why has whole bashing, abated amongst journalists. it's not as if journalist has become more polite and courteous, that's not an explanation. what possible explanation is what you offer. but do you think? what might account for the abatement, if you will, the decline of poll bashing? >> as if because -- especially with trump's, rising him bashing the polls as fake, or they're underestimating his support and not to look at the polls, the because of journalists were to bash the polls, they would kind of be aligning themselves with someone who is also attacking the pass itself?

>> that's an excellent point. one that i hadn't thought or. does that mean that, if that's the case, it might be a short duration? trump is not going to be on the political scene forever. he's been never quite a while. it's not going to be forever. what do you think? is this a short term phenomenon? >> shortest. it's definitely short term in terms of trump itself, but the process of attacking the press, and the polls, is going to be around in the republican seen for at least a little bit longer than from, with people around desantis and other republican politicians picking up that mantle. i think that it's not necessarily tied to trump itself, although he's definitely the one who's pioneered it on the republican side. >> very interesting point. >> is it because the public already has such a distress for the polls, the media feels that they don't need to add more to it by bashing on it as well in the media? >> why pylon, in other words. why should the media pylon,

went to, stresses you put it, is pretty intense. that's good. gabrielle. >> i'm wondering f pole bashing has abated because, i think, i'm thinking about the shift from news to more entertainment based in the past ten or 20 years. maybe it's similar to sports stats in which they're good for readings, not more of, i do something easily digestible, the public can easily digest, and take interest and -- also, it's a lot easier to look at a poll than it is to listen to a ten minute report on the complex and your workings of american minds when it comes to political decisions. >> that's a good point. >> as it's related to maybe the entertainment factor avenues media -- >> do you think that this is ten, 20 years in the making? or is that probably longer than that? >> a -- >> the phenomenon you describe.

>> i'm thinking that, i'm thinking that that poll bashing has slowed down probably in the past 20 years. that's only because i'm 22 and i haven't really heard a bet. i haven't heard in the news media since i've been a watch of the news media. i also think when it came to 2016, the american public was a lot more okay, now trump's president, than oh, what did the polls do wrong? i don't, now i thought that if there were to be, there probably was whole bashing in 2016, this is high school, so mediated notice that, but the news media didn't really have reports. how one point did it go wrong? >> it was not as vehement, or hasn't, hands or, hostile among the news media after 2004. it's kind of puzzling as to why that seems to be a demarcation line. maybe your right. maybe you are right. the public's respect for polling has dropped off to a point where the media just feels that they don't have to

weigh in. it could be. >> could also be because, as you said, it did change in 2004. someone like amy breslin, he mentioned fire, also made an incorrect assumption about the election. i think that it could just be like people are wrong. i don't know. it's something of the store where the journalists, or some journalist did get it wrong, a prominent journalist, and than there is obviously something going on that people are not picking up on in terms of human behavior. from journalists who are doing the shoe leather mat ahead, or, the shoe leather reporting method, or people who are doing the polls. >> that's great, i like that explanation. the journalists were chased by their own miss predictions, such as jimmy breslin in 2004. there for their kind of tamp down the poll bashing. interesting.

isaac. >> i also wonder if it could be the development of technology and data itself. i feel like our perception of data, and that type of stuff specifically in terms of media and news has become a lot more, potentially, like welcoming and it has been in previous decades. just from other areas, using it so much more. i think gabrielle's point about sports is an excellent understanding of. that that people are very focused on stats, and even a silver, the person who runs fivethirtyeight, is a sport statistician at heart. i think that might be something that has made the entire environment a little more welcoming to the data pulled ash, the data appalling. >> why would that be? why would people suddenly become, if not enamored, then more respectful of the data or polling. it is six to put off a lot of

people, a lot of journalists. >> i think that's definitely fair. i think, however, the past, i would say ten years, data and technology has become so entrenched in everyone's lives that i think that it makes it so people might be a little less worried about them before. i can remember back ten years ago, the idea of somebody having a phone while i was 11 is absolutely crazy, but now, that something that's normal because we need to make sure people are able to contact their children, things like that. i think the greater societal shift towards technology and a data, all that stuff, might be one of the reasons why it's more, it's more okay. >> that's a good point. that's a good point. >> this is a related point to that. you mention nate silver, i think the rise of the polling aggregator's have played some role in this.

largely because it's taken some of the, it's taken some of the celebrity, and some of the attention away from pollsters themselves. i think this is something that, i think journalist felt they were competing with us. now, you see very much a fusion between journalism and the polls that you often see folks like nate silver being brought on to election night coverage. i think that the, especially with the rise of online journalism, it has made it a lot easier for journalists to make polling part of their coverage, as opposed to having to compete with falling. i think it's also made, if it has a pulling more accurate, it's created more, there's been more of a respective not from the -- from journalists as a scientific process, as opposed to something that's guesswork. >> so it's a little more sophisticated than pull bashing

was. and a little more thoughtful than the reflux of polls. the polls are, wrong let's insult them are. you've been very patient. >> a thing, thinking that in 2016, where people were extremely surprised with the result. so by extension, the media for more, i guess, inclined to be forgiving of the polls, even though they were completely wrong as well. that forgiveness factor of the people were surprised in the poll, sales of a right to be surprised. >> interesting point, i would wonder how many pollsters were forgiven. i don't know if they remember 2016. in 2020, that was another embarrassment in some respects. a different kind of embarrassment. the polls were collectively off in a way that was unmatched since the reagan carter election. >> the point that i was going to get, at hours kind of been an answer question, or answer the question with a question.

is that poll bashing has stopped, or the people just not really care about polling anymore, as the masses? it goes towards isaac's points of -- i think that we discussed in the class before that people have started closing their doors more, answering calls, and the invention of caller itn been able to decide who's calling your phone. most people to want to be bothered anymore. i think it has a lot to do with our culture and society's been individualistic. i don't think it's that whole bashing has really stopped per se, i just don't think that people rely on polling again, going to what we've been discussing. people don't think that polling captures the complexity of the human mind, of what people are really thinking for what if people change their minds, again, going back to the snapshot in time. so it's really, it's really complicated.

>> yeah, i think so, these are great responses and i wish i thought about half of them. cassie? >> going off of purcell's point, if people care or not, i was thinking about this question and trying to think of other trends that could kind of go along parallel in the decline and pull passion. with the decline in poll bashing since 2004, we've also seen the increase of polarization in our politics and i'm kind of thinking that this could be part of an explanation. after a surprising election result, people are not as interested in what went wrong in this past instance. they are focusing now, okay, we have this polarized government now. what are the next steps? how are the branches going to be interacting with each other? it's much more focused on that partisan polarization now with presidential elections. so, i think that future looking mindset, focused on

polarization, has sort of taken over, lurking in the back on polling mistakes in a way. >> it doesn't seem to really matter that much anymore, because the electorates interests lies elsewhere. it is in an interesting point as well. did i see your, handily? >> i was going to respond priscilla's point with another question. if people don't trust the polls in the media doesn't like to use the polls, then why do we still have polls during election season? if the public already doesn't think that they are accurate, and the media already doesn't like that they're presumptuous, why is polling still around? i think it's because humans want to know what is going to happen and they want that sense of certainty. i think cassie's point is very accurate, polarization is a very big effect, because i don't think it's about the individual candidates anymore, necessarily. i think it's about the parties more. so, i think that is why people like the polls. it's more about the parties and it's more broad than just

predicting a specific candidate. which i think is what people got wrong. people were frustrated with this. they were expecting a specific candidate to win. now, when you talk about candidates, it's always like, the democratic presidential candidate, it's not like you're saying, joe biden's name in the polls. >> interesting thoughts, yeah. >> to that, i would add that polling is probably not going to go away. in part because it's pedigree is so long. researchers have found evidence of proto-polls, straw polls of a sort. as far back as 1824. the election of 1820. for newspapers in pennsylvania and north clan carolina reporting on the sentiment detection that some people, okay, who is for that john quincy adams? who is for andrew jackson? going back that far, 1824 is

really a long, long period. so, it's hard to see polling be completely uprooted. it might be. it might be. i kind of doubt it. my argument, no, it will not be completely uprooted. it will still have election polls. every election cycle, midterms or presidential elections, even off year elections, there's going to be pulling. a couple more points, angela and then isaac. >> to priscilla's point about people really closing their doors and not entering polls, i think that is related to the trend of declining institutional trust across american society. i think part of why pole bashing has abated, journalist are more concerned about that. similar to this idea that pull bashing has become political, i think journalist now looking at this poll bashing don't necessarily see just the friendly, maybe harsh competition between polls and

journalist. they see broader and more concerning trends about institutional trust. so, they are less likely to engage in it. they feel that it's absolute actually societal problems they should be investigating and not something they should be participating in. >> thoughtful points, very good. >> responding more to lilies point on who are the polls for? i would completely agree that i don't think they are really for the people anymore. i think that -- we've had this discussion before in class, i think that it's much more for the candidates themselves. because of the fact that polling provides such a good indicator for potential donors to get money to candidates that they think are going to be successful in the campaigns. i think that's definitely something that as we have seen a decline in the actual trust and interest of polls maybe from people and general, i think that might be the alternative of where it innovates, it's not for the

people anymore. it is for institutions and other things such as that. >> election polling does tend to be focused on candidates, public polls are out there perhaps in greater numbers than that before. we will see. nate silver, as i mentioned, do you keep track of how many polls are being conducted and by whom. there are internal polls to, candidates run them themselves. they don't necessarily make public, as to the trends that they are picking up. so, you are right, there are these other sort of subterranean aspects of opinion research, a polling, of election polling. we don't often see it. we don't often pick up on this and it's not often disclosed. these are great points, folks, these are great points. let me offer my three observations. one of them, explaining the decline of pulled ash-ing, some of the more prominent pullback

jurors have passed away. tions, even local some and they are no longer on the scene. secondly, major news organizations, even local, some local news organizations have become polling entities themselves. this is not necessarily a new trend. we've seen the new york times and cbs news get together and associations that began in 1975. they were the pioneers. nowadays, we seen many national and even news organizations conduct polls are commission polls. cnn, the new york times, the washington post, the wall street journal are among the news organizations, prominent news organizations, that have become posters themselves. so, it makes it obviously a little more awkward to be

bashing your own work. this may be an explanation. angelo hinted at this, in fact, he mailed it. saying that the rise of the journalist is another explanation for the decline, the abatement, if you will of pulled ash-ing among prominent journalists. the rise of the data journalist. not all journalists in this country are steeped and comfortable with big data. a growing number are. nate silver who launched the polling analysis site by.com in 2008 began, became almost an instant celebrity when he predicted or forecast the outcomes of 49 of the 50 state elections in that year's presidential election between barack obama and john mccain. he got it right 49 out of 50.

that's his pole base was modeling. his poll based data analysis. even a top that, in 2012 but in a race between obama and mitt romney, the republican, a race that some organizations such as the gallup organization thought was going to go wrong these way, narrowly, silver predicted the outcome in an obama victory. really becoming something of a celebrity. now, he is not infallible, he is not infallible, 2016, he gave donald trump less than a 30% chance of a victory. he forecast that hillary clinton would carry key states such as wisconsin, florida, michigan, north carolina, and pennsylvania. all of which trump won in his narrow election victory. he won an electoral college

victory of some substance. you lost a pular vote. e forecast at 5:38.com offered in 2016 about those states washe also figured that t trump's chances of winning a split election a split election in which he loses the popular vote but winds the electol vote, 5:38 dot com figured out that likelihood was 10.5%. very small. not impossible but pretty small and that is what happened. a split decision in 2016. in 2020, fivethirtyeight dot com gives trump a 10% chance of victory saying biden is likely to end by eight percentage points in popular vote. but he says, and wrote, two days before the election, i am here to tell you that trump

could still win. even though there is a 10% chance that the model of fivethirtyeight was giving trump in that election. all hedging aside, i would argue this is a bit of a hedge, silver and other data journalists have shown a comfort with, indeed a sophistication and understanding of polling data. this projects how codification that wasn't matched by pulled batters from earlier days and earlier times. so, to recap, why has vehement pull bashing abated? passing a prominent poll batters, journalists who have bashful's. major news organizations have really become and have confirmed their presence on the polling scene. they are pulling as well as new gun organizations.

and then the rise of the data journalist. so, what one might ask have pull bashing journalists accomplished? in their criticism, in their denunciations. what affects, effects, did this cross generational poll bashing have overall? what would you suspect are some of the results, up shots, consequences of cross generational poll bashing? yes? >> well, i think one of the colonists that was criticizing polling strategy of only using telephones, land lines, and not including cell phones, that probably prompted the industry to make that move towards cell phones that we see today. so, hopefully in theory that is

making the pollsters available to reach a more wide audience. so, i think that was a really good thing that happened for the industry. and then also i, i was thinking that some of the criticisms that the poll bashers were offering was saying how polling does not capture a realistic representation because it is just a number. it doesn't really gauge how the public is actually feeling. and made polling so, maybe pushing journalist and pollsters to take the shoe leather approach and made polling hopefully a bit more accurate. so, if that movement happened, and that was a good thing. so, i think those two criticisms were pretty prominent from what i gathered from the readings and the lecture. >> very good, taking the first one for a moment, cassie. something of a reminder that there are a large number of people, a growing number of people, who are using cell

phones primarily, jimmy breslin was calling attention to this. perhaps an insulting and an aggressive way, nonetheless, underscoring a trend that became even more of a powerful and decisive trend. they say, most people hurt -- many people have given up land limes. they are cell phone only, cell phone only household. it is great. >> i agree with cassie's saying how pull bashing has kind of forced pollsters to change their message methodology's. from chapter two of the book that we read this week, going back to the 1930s and the pulled asking that happened there, it says that the literary digest failure, it introduced a sense of nagging doubt about the polls as they continued for so long, in election pulling in general. also it presented a competitiveness in the polling industry and how poll bashing, it couldn't bash one poll and

then praise another poll forgetting it's more accurate. so, it kind of made a sense of like a competitive nature in this industry. >> those are good points, do you think that is a direct ramification or a side line of this phenomenon? >> it is a little bit of both, it depends on the election year and what the polls have said because of all the polls, they got it wrong, obviously there is not going to be a competition. everyone got it wrong. in some places, some years we call different polling organizations have different numbers. so, those years might be more prominent, look you got it right, and then look at what is wrong. >> it comes to mind next, the 2020 election. a lot of pollsters got a wrong thinking that biden had a ten, 12 percentage point lead in the popular vote. as we have seen, there were some pollsters, emerson college pulling from one, it was pretty close.

their final poll had biden ahead by five percentage points. he won by 4.5. yeah, you are right, there are some differences in the polling result. >> it's made every day americans not care about the polls. trump has obviously expedited the process for republicans. i think republicans, democrats, independents, they are taught about the polls, they go oh, i don't believe them. i think it's because heavy day americans are kind of engaged in their own form of shoot leather journalism. they are the ones talking to friends and neighbors and other people out and about going their normalize, they talk to people about these things. they develop a better sense then maybe a poll could offer. in that respect, it has made people more cautious of the polls, or even outright just dismissive of them. they are feeling something different. >> do you think that maybe too qualitative and not sort of scientific enough? >> yeah, especially now --

>> talking to your neighbors, doing your own she level reporting. >> especially with republicans living with more republicans, and democrats living with democrats. it produces more of a bias. i agree, it is too qualitative. i think it is still something that is more, i don't know, maybe more real, i guess, in a sense. >> that is interesting. usion>> yeah, going directly ono chandler's point, i think that poll bashing is deathly bringing instead disillusioned to the institution to these major institutions that we all used to hold the era. i think one of the reasons, why the formulation of pulling and it's beginning as a very scientific way of doing things. >> at least, was characterizes that. it is more quasi-scientific. >> well, in that exact point, dr. gallup was always calling itself doctor gallup. was always seen as this very sophisticated measure of always trying to do things in a very pristine and scientific way. even as saying in your book,

all of that stuff sometimes gets taken to the side, when you are actually down in the field. there is a lot of issues with that. with the resulting disillusion and when they were wrong and all the paul bashing that was brought alongside with, it i think that tacitly also hurts the characteristic of heart science as well. i think that and the idea that these are for civic duty in related to these hard characteristics that then made it so people are then a lot less interested, or welcome to the thoughts of these hard data sciences. we see that this thing that was characterized as a hard data science was wrong, like, a lot of the time. >> often enough to raise peoples skepticism. polls are not always wrong, they have been wrong on often enough. as we have seen for people to be kind of wary about them. kind of skeptical. not certain