25 Oct Abacus responds

On Thursday, I criticized local news organizations for credulous reporting of an Abacus poll, commissioned by the Company of Canadians and two local anti-fracking groups, purporting to show overwhelming public opposition to fracking. In reality, the only question the survey asked was framed in such a way as to insure that result.

David Coletto, CEO of Abacus Data, disputes my use of the term “push poll” to describe the survey. He has a point.

The poll question was not a push poll. Push polls are used by campaigns to influence or change the opinion of respondents under the guise of a survey. As such they are not considered legitimate research and therefore strongly frowned upon by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, of which we are a member.

My terminology was imprecise. I did not intend to imply that the survey was a bogus poll whose real purpose was to influence public opinion. Rather, I believe the poll question was deliberately designed to influence the results of the survey.

Coletto again:

Coletto

The question commissioned by the Council of Canadians and other groups was intended to measure public perceptions around the moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in Nova Scotia.

The question was meant to gauge support for maintaining the moratorium under strict conditions – that being the results of a review that found the procedure to have no impact on human health, etc. The preamble provided some context to respondents.

I believe the question fairly measured public reaction to the issue and a point of view that the moratorium should remain in place until a review is complete that found no risk of harm to the public or the environment.

Thanks again for the inquiry.

I responded:

Nomenclature aside, my core objection remains. You say the poll was intended to measure public perceptions around the moratorium, and the preamble merely supplied “some context.”

Didn’t the preamble do more than that? By selectively listing negative concerns about fracking, but omitting arguments for it, was it not specifically designed to drive an anti-fracking response?

You could have used a “some say this, some say that” approach: “Some say fracking endangers the water table and human health; others say fracking technology has improved so much that it offers a low cost energy supply with negligible risk. Do you favour retaining the moratorium even if the independent review now underway finds it poses no risk to the environment or human health?” Or even, “Do you favour lifting the moratorium if the independent review finds no risk?

My wording could no doubt be improved, but the Abacus wording was tendentious and designed to produce the client’s desired result. Don’t you agree it seems deliberately designed to produce the largest possible anti-fracking numbers?

Coletto again:

I take your point. Much of my work is balancing the needs of my client and the needs of good methodology. I think we did that in this case. I agree there are other ways to measure opinion on fracking but the question was specifically about the moratorium and the high standards the client wanted to keep.

I appreciate Abacus’s willingness to engage.