Filtered By: Opinion
Opinion
COMMENTARY

Public opinion surveys in the age of fake news


It used to be public opinion surveys were just a weather vane for politician wannabes, or sometimes reason for leaders to tweak public policies.

In our era, polls can also save lives. Take the reaction to the survey results released last week by the Social Weather Stations. The drop by 18 points in President Duterte’s satisfaction ratings not only triggered a rare apology from PNP Chief Bato dela Rosa (as if the drug war was the only factor); the eye-popping plunge was followed by an abrupt overhaul of the drug war, with the President transferring command over it from the PNP to the undermanned Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

In an interview, the new PDEA chief, Aaron Aquino, was asked if the drug war would now be less bloody. He matter-of-factly said yes, and not because the PDEA was going to be less aggressive than the PNP, but due to its relatively minuscule force of 1800 or so agents to go after the millions of drug users and pushers who survived the bloodbath of the previous 15 months.

Just judging from this sequence of events – a drop in the polls, followed by a transfer of drug-war control to the smaller, less lethal PDEA – one could fairly assume that the effect of the SWS survey is the sparing of more than a few lives.

Then Pulse Asia ratings came out a few days later, with vastly different results, with eight out of ten respondents approving of the President’s performance. So far, there is no sign yet of an impulse to move command over the drug war back to the police, but few would be surprised if that happened.

It’s still a mystery why the two reputable polling firms have seemingly divergent findings, with neither of them attempting much of an explanation, and both leaving many to speculate or doubt, or only believe the results that agreed with one’s point of view. Considering what’s at stake (perhaps hundreds of lives lost or saved, depending on who will conduct the drug war in the end?), it’s bewildering that the public is left guessing about the fateful questions now hovering over these conflicting findings.

The pollsters make it a point not to ask their respondents why they answered the survey questions the way they did, e.g., why they approve or disapprove of the President, why they are satisfied or dissatisfied with his performance or with the drug war in general (despite grave misgivings about its conduct). Neither do they ask respondents where they get their information.

However, the pollsters give away their outdated assumptions with each press release and presentation. They preface each announcement of survey results with a laundry list of news events that occurred during the survey period, strongly suggesting that the opinions of their respondents were formed by what truly happened in the real world, or whatever of it is filtered through television news.

But that world has changed in the age of “fake news,” with information coming to respondents from all directions, and not just via the traditional media, with much of that information not at all fact-based. We have all come across Facebook posts or links that were dubious or obviously fabricated; but many of us share these anyway because they support our beliefs or just make us feel better.

There are no known studies in the Philippines yet of the effects of disinformation spread via social media; but a Buzzfeed study in the US shows that Facebook engagement with fake news during the US election campaign overtook engagement with the top political news in mainstream media in the weeks before the election, with some analysts asserting that it could have been the difference in Donald Trump’s narrow electoral-college victory over Hillary Clinton.

The great assumption of democracy is that a free press will provide citizens with the facts necessary to make wise decisions. That hallowed belief has been turned on its head with our information ecosystem rife with lies and falsehoods spread through social media and almost certainly influencing public opinion. The polling firms would serve their audiences better by acknowledging this new reality, and presenting the falsehoods that went viral during the survey periods, in addition to the events that really happened.

LOADING CONTENT