Customer Reviews

Mobocracy: How the Media's Obsession with Polling Twists the News, Alters Elections, and Undermines Democracy

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I didn't read the book - rather I'm commenting on the sophomoric review by the anonymous Publishers Weekly reviewer. I had to rate the book to post this comment so forgive my choice of 5 stars based simply on the silliness of the review. I counted 7 criticisms and negative comments in the review of the book. I'll tackle just 2 of these:

The reviewer claims turnout in presidental elections peaked in 1876 rather than 1960. It is true that 82.6% voted in 1876 versus 65.4% in 1960, however, presumably the book's author was discussing the modern age of voting, following the advent of women's suffrage in 1920. For the reviewer not to even consider this huge distinction betrays an enormous prejudice. Modern academic papers discuss the reasons for the drop in turnout since 1960, despite increased SES, which tends to raise turnout. Therefore, the drop since 1960 is the center of a fairly brisk scholarly debate.

Secondly, the reviewer claims that the book is wrong to connect voter apathy with the welfare state since Europe has "more robust welfare states" and higher voter turnout. While I can't address the book's claim that welfare is responsible for low voter turnout, a decrease in social connectedness (less married, less church-going), which may be somewhat linked to welfare, is the strongest variable dampening U.S. voting (By the way, the above is not moralizing ... I don't go to church. It's based on scholarly analysis; for example, see Ruy A. Teixeira "The Disappearing American Voter").

Meanwhile, the reasons Europe has greater turnout are varied and not related to a robust welfare state as the reviewer insinuates. Proportional representation (such as in the Netherlands) or direct presidential voting (like in France), increases the benefits of voting. Compulsory voting laws such as in Belgium (94% turnout in the 1980's) and Italy (84% turnout) criminalize the lack of voting, even though the laws are lightly enforced. The legislative makeup makes a difference; for example, Denmark (86%) and Israel (79%) have unicameral systems versus the strong bicameral system in the U.S. Furthermore, voter turnout is increased when there are many political parties since a voter's ballot can be more readily diluted than in the strong two-party system of the U.S.

The reviewer refers to the "media's alleged liberal bias (which he asserts but never tries to prove)." For proof of liberal bias, one has only to read the silly Publishers Weekly review of the book.

If, as certain types of people never tire of reminding us, 'the United States is a republic, not a democracy,' it's legitimate to ask just how much attention the shifting winds of 'public opinion' really deserve. In fact, the Founders devoted much time and ink to this question, and our Constitution was devised with a number of mechanisms for insulating government from fickle populism. As Matthew Robinson makes clear in this important book, though, things have changed tremendously. And not for the better.

As Robinson describes it, a number of mutually reinforcing factors are at work here. For one thing, the American people don't know their civics very well (to put it mildly). 'Almost six in ten Americans, 59 percent, think the president, not Congress, has the power to declare war. Thirty-five percent of Americans believe the president has the power to adjourn Congress at his will. Almost half, 49 percent, think he has the power to suspend the Constitution. And six in ten think the chief executive appoints judges to the federal courts without the approval of the Senate (p. 189-190).' Opportunistic politicians and a media obsessed with the short term exploit this ignorance to promote, Robinson argues, left-wing political agendas and demonize those people and ideas of whom they disapprove.

The classic example of this, he says, was the Clinton impeachment debate, in which the American people apparently were persuaded that removing a president for high crimes and misdemeanors would constitute a 'coup' 'overturning the election' (an argument the Clintonites reinforced because their own polling showed it was working) -- as though Bob Dole and not Al Gore would somehow become president. For craven politicians, the fact that Clinton still had 'high approval ratings' was enough to justify acquittal. Thus did polling by partisan media trump law, morality, and the Constitution.

Robinson's book is well written, and covers many of the important bases. I was a little annoyed by the book's E-Z To Read design, with lots of headlines and subheads, pull quotes, and special formatting for poll questions and other highlights. But I know it improves 'readability,' and maybe that's what you need to do in order to get the Mob Robinson describes to keep reading.

As others have, I would suggest reading this alongside Bernard Goldberg's book, 'Bias.' The two of them are enough to make anyone swear off the American media altogether. Maybe we can spend our free time reading The Federalist (or better yet, Hans-Hermann Hoppe's 'Democracy: The God that Failed') instead.

Matthew Robinson's "Mobocracy" is a new and fascinating analysis of the media's obsession with opinion polls, and on media bias and manipulation. Robinson demonstrates how the media effectively use polls as a tool of political persuasion. He details the methodology involved and surveys all the major literature in a scholarly--though engaging--fashion. Informed by an exhaustive understanding of our nation's Founders, Robinson insightfully analyzes and demonstrates the major threat that the media's use of polls fundamentally poses to our constitutional democracy, and to our liberty. This book is a must read for any serious student of American politics.

If you've ever had the gut feeling that the media and politicians manipulate polls and polling data, here's the book for you. It documents case after case of such abuse. For instance, I've always been shocked that there aren't more people who support tax cuts ... the reasons why it appears that there isn't broad based support for tax cuts are explained in this book.

Matthew Robinson discusses the basics of polling, and clearly explains the difference between responsible and irresponsible polling -- and how irresponsible polls are widely used by the media. He also looks at a great deal of polling data (from tax debates, education reform, and gun control, to elections, presidential approval ratings, and more). The case studies are backed up with a truckload of evidence and great anecdotes.

Bernard Goldberg may have exposed the political preferences that exist within newsrooms in his book, Bias, but in Mobocracy, Matthew Robinson shows how editors and journalists abuse their position of power to craft polls and influence results that further their own, narrow, political agenda. If Goldberg exposed the smoking gun of bias in the newsroom, Robinson provides the forensic analysis of the media's preferred ammunition in the war of ideas.

Robinson's Premise is that the use of polls is killing the deliberative debate envisioned by the founders. I have to agree, not only because Robinson makes a good argument, but I've experienced it in various business and community initiatives.

Robinson starts by examining errors common in polling methods and how these errors make it impossible to read actual public intentions. The book moves on to deal with specific issues of selecting an appropriate sample and wording problems.

It is the second half of the book that I find most interesting. It is here that Robinson discusses the unitended consequences of polling. Mainly that polling cuts off debates, sometimes before it starts. Additionally that wording variations and issue framing changes demonstrate that in most cases the "opinion" measured is very soft. It is unfortunate, but necessary, that Robinson uses the Clinton impeachment and compares and contrasts with the Nixon impeachment polls. In both cases, the people gave the president the benefit of the doubt. Slowly as more information became available opinion turned, but in both cases the public prefered that the president resign than have congress remove him. Finally, Robinson looks at how journalistic and idealogical biases are evident in what is polled, how, when and what numbers actually get reported.

One significant omission by Robinson is the misleading use of "margin of error". When sampling, one normally tests a number of items in a sample. Then to ensure that the sample is representative of the whole polulation, another sample of items would be tested. This leads to information about the two samples. One then could infer how representative the samples are to the whole popluation. The short of it is that with only one sample taken (a poll of x number of people) there is no valid way to make any inferences between the sample and the whole population. They found a formula in a statistics textbook and plug in the wrong numbers!

All in all, an excellent effort and very interesting. Definitely worth reading.

Mobocracy gave me far more than the title suggests. I read on politics and history a lot and there is no book our there like this one.

This book is an exciting, dynamic defense of freedom that changed the way I look at politics.

It is really the story of how the mostly-liberal media rigs the public debate to favor the expansion of government, the rise of the nanny state, and undermines reforms that would expand liberty.

The examples of question wording and reportage from "mainstream" polls are fun (and shocking as well as enraging) to read and perfectly communicate the subtle ways conservative ideas are undercut and sabotaged.

Mobocracy shows why only the liberal side is represented and how polls that are supposed to test public opinion really lead to a more ignorant and easily manipulated populace.

As this immensely readable book progressed, I found myself learning to read polls and political news stories in a new way--delighting in uncovering the "rhetorical bombs" hidden in Democrats' attacks and in "objective" press reportage.

This book really gave me hope that the cause of freedom and limited government can WIN because it is a Reaganesque reminder that words can inspire, lead, and change the world.

The book is packed with the polls that show support for lower taxes and more freedom--and how we can better explain them to the public.

The REAL message of this book is that winning the debates in American politics require confident and bold appeals to freedom as well as ways real efforts to explain the money-grubbing corruption and cynicism of Washington's government-loving sycophants.

Mobocracy is primer in the value of reclaiming HOW and WHAT we discuss in politics. Perhaps some citizens will read it as I did, so we can return to the magnificent vision of the founders that empowered the individual, extolled education, and trusted the people to take responsibility for their lives and destiny.

This book, like another good book, COLORING THE NEWS, will never the see the light of day in most bookstores (shoved into the tiny "public affairs" or "public policy" sections in the back of most stores) should be read by everyone who has believed a news poll or has been polled. Having been polled numerous times (I live in a liberal section of New York so lots of pollers like to get my opinion because they think they've already predicted it based on my income, profession and zipcode), I have found myself unable to answer many questions because the "choice" of answers and their phrasing is designed to obtain a certain response the poller wants to hear. The PW reviewer is wrong about his or her facts, as another reviewer here carefully points out, so it's enough to say that the reviewer is simply having a too-typical knee-jerk reaction to his own politics which are most likely based not on his real opinions (if the reviewer has any) but because in publishing one must think a certain way to get invited to the best parties.

Matthew Robinson's Mobocracy is a great read, confirming what most of us have always thought - that the media manipulates polls to support their own liberal slant on the news. This book is a great analysis of how the media's pollsters twist the wording of questions to get the results they want, from the Clinton impeachment polls to the more recent debate on taxes. This is a book the major media outlets definitely wouldn't want you to read - which is all the more reason to buy it!

It's about time someone wrote a book on the subject of public opinion polling. Everyone with half a brain knows that polls are often used as a flimsy justification to distort the truth and mislead the public. Finally, Mobocracy comes along and explains EXACTLY how this this is done. It may not surprise you to hear that polls are used in nefarious ways, but it will disgust you nonetheless, especially the extent to which it is done, meticulously documented by the author. Not only that, Robinson makes a compelling case on a philosophical level about how this poisons public debate. It's a book that should be read, and Robinson has to be given extra-points for writing such an accessible book on a topic that frequently spins out into boring public policy analysis.

As one who used to work in the polling industry and is continuously frustrated by the poor methodology used in most widely-reported polls, I was intrigued by this book at the outset. Indeed, the premise is interesting, and there are many valid points to be made in its pages. However, the book is muddled in its presentation and drags on for far too many pages. Each chapter, and often each page, reads just like the previous one. The author gets an A+ for drawing attention to a serious problem in the media that hinders political debate, but he gets a D for presentation and style.