US Public Opinion Institutions Need To Reflect Post-Election

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 5 November 2020
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Jaime Cantwell. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
Regardless of the results of the U.S. presidential election,* there is an additional loser: the American polling system. They repeatedly published poll results saying that Joe Biden held a national support rate over 10% higher than that of Donald Trump, but Biden's popular vote rate is only about 2.4% higher than that of Trump, and in reality, the two are in a tight race. In battleground states, there were polls that said Biden held a lead over Trump of 5% in Florida and 4% in Ohio, both states that Trump won in the end.

Although the criticism is directed at polling agencies, American mainstream media should take even more responsibility for this false picture of public opinion. Many mainstream media sources consulted and published distorted polls. Their proactive reporting of domestic issues in the long term also constructed false representations of American public opinion, undermined the social environment of the polls and exacerbated the distortion of public opinion polls.

As a whole, polling is not the only point of issue with America's public opinion mechanisms. Their values are fairly radical and not open or inclusive enough. Under the two-party system, Americans are not detached or independent enough, and have alliances that are too deep, which has severely weakened their ability to report objectively on domestic issues. In reporting on the U.S. presidential election, American media has often become more of a fighter in the battle rather than a neutral reporter.

We believe that political positions and preferences in elections will have a subtle impact on the design of opinion polls.

Evidently, the bias of American public opinion institutions is no longer an isolated incident, but instead has been widely rationalized within the industry, and has become a part of practitioners' views of professionalism and standards within the industry. When many people do this, they will not think they could have possibly strayed from the truth, and definitely will not think they have deviated from the standards of authenticity. The truth and objectiveness that they flaunt has actually been seriously refracted by their values.

Let's take a minute to imagine how many falsehoods would be told if these same biased, polarized domestic polling institutions targeted China. Domestically, the deviation of their reports will be constrained by the target audience, but when discussing China, their influence and lead over the American people is much stronger. With China-related issues, the general consistency with their audience's interests and values will allow them to use the reports at will, so much that even if they are wrong, they will not be held accountable. Imagine what they could do with something like this!

Thus, whether consciously or not, they will make polarized, self-indulgent reports on China. They have collectively constructed a view of China as a strange nation with almost inhuman tendencies. In their description, China is a country that infringes upon human rights, suppresses the human nature of its people, is outrageous and aggressive, and is always preparing to start a war. In reality, the livelihood of Chinese people has undergone earth-shattering changes over the years, and the Chinese economy has integrated with the world. There is frequent exchange between Chinese and Western personnel, and China is the superpower that has not had war with any other nation for the longest period of time. How can these two different Chinas possibly be the same?

American public opinion institutions have created a problem for America's domestic narration. The election seemed as if they opened the door to a black room and tried to make a prediction. Actually, they can do some tests on their reports on China. With the COVID-19 pandemic, China and the U.S. had radically different performances. Seeing China's accomplishments in fighting COVID-19 and economic recovery, is this not enough to challenge American and other Westerners' prejudices against China and cause them to reflect on their biases?

How can a thriving country with outstanding accomplishments in improving the well-being of its people be described as a cruel, tyrannical government by Western elites and public opinion institutions? China's care for its people be any less than the "political charity" sent by the U.S. government? How can such strange logic exist in this world?

I hope that American public opinion institutions can return to Earth from the clouds, swallow their pride and do the proper self-reflection on the professionalism and morals of their industry. This is the obedience and respect they should have toward morality and responsibility.

*Editor’s note: The presidential race was called for Biden on Nov. 7.


这次美国大选无论最终什么结果,都有一个额外的大输家,那就是美国的民调机构。它们反复发布的民意调查都说拜登在全国的支持率高于特朗普约10个百分点,但拜登的全国得票率只比特朗普高了2.4%,双方的实际选情非常胶着。围绕战场州,有民调说拜登支持率在佛罗里达州领先特朗普5个百分点,在俄亥俄州领先4个百分点,结果特朗普在这两个州都赢了。

批评的矛头一时间对准了民调机构,然而美国主流媒体应当对这一虚假民意的构图承担更大责任。那些主流媒体很多直接参与并发布了失真民调,另外它们长时间在国内问题上立场先行的报道构建了美国民意的一些假象,破坏了民意调查的社会环境,加剧了民调的失真。

整体看,美国的舆论机构、而不仅仅是民调机构出了问题。他们的价值观比较激进,开放和包容性不足,在美国两党政治的环境下不够超脱、独立,与其中一方事实上结盟太深,这严重削弱了他们报道国内事务时的客观性。在对美国大选的报道中,美国媒体很多时候更多成了站队的斗士,而不像是中立的报道者。

我们相信,立场和大选中的好恶倾向也会对一些民调的问卷设计产生潜移默化的影响。

很显然,美国舆论机构的立场先行已经不是孤立的表现,而是在该行业内被广泛合理化了,成为了从业者对专业性和行业标准认识的一部分。很多人那样做时,他们并不认为自己有可能脱离了实际,更不认为自己在偏离真实性原本应有的标准,他们所炫耀的真实和客观实际上经过了他们价值观的严重折射。

我们不妨设想一下,在展现国内民意方面出了很大偏差的这些舆论机构,当他们针对中国时会出现大多少倍的错位。在国内,他们报道的偏离度会受到目标受众的制约,但说中国的事情时,他们影响、引导国内受众的能力要大得多,与受众在对华问题上利益和价值的大体一致性使得他们的报道可以任意发挥,即使的确错了也不会受到追究,想想这个时候他们会干出什么来!

所以他们自觉或不自觉地在对华报道上有了极度的自我放纵。他们集体向美国人构建了一个几乎有反人类倾向的古怪中国。这个国家在他们的描述中恶意侵犯人权,有着压迫本国人民的天性,而且对外蛮横好斗,随时准备发动战争。而实际情况是,中国这些年的民生面貌发生天翻地覆变化,中国经济与世界连为一体,中西人员交流十分频密,而且中国是全球没有对外发生任何战争时间最长的大国,如此不同的两个中国怎么能对得上号?

美国舆论机构对国内的讲述出了问题,一次大选就像给一个黑屋打开了窗子一样,做了检验。其实对中国的报道也是可以检验的,这一次新冠疫情,中国与美国和西方的表现截然不同,美国和一些西方人的对华偏见受到中国抗疫和恢复经济成就的巨大挑战,这难道不足以让美国和西方舆论机构针对他们的对华偏见做一次反思吗?

一个欣欣向荣、在改善本国人民福祉方面成绩斐然的国家怎么可能像西方舆论机构和精英们所描述那样在实施残酷的“暴政”呢?这个国家对本国人民的关心怎么可能还不及美国政府送来的“政治慈善”呢?这个世界如何会存在这样的奇葩逻辑?

希望美国舆论机构从云端回到大地上来,收敛自己的傲慢,对照行业应有的专业性和道德准则做一些自省。这是他们对道义和责任应有的一份遵从和敬畏。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Trump Declares War on Cities

Taiwan: Trump’s Talk of Legality Is a Joke

Malaysia: The Tariff Trap: Why America’s Protectionist Gambit Only Tightens China’s Grip on Global Manufacturing

Spain: Charlie Kirk and the Awful People Celebrating His Death

Venezuela: Charlie Kirk and the 2nd Amendment

Topics

Malaysia: The Tariff Trap: Why America’s Protectionist Gambit Only Tightens China’s Grip on Global Manufacturing

Singapore: Several US Trade ‘Deals’ Later, There Are Still More Questions than Answers

Venezuela: Charlie Kirk and the 2nd Amendment

Spain: Charlie Kirk and the Awful People Celebrating His Death

Germany: Trump Declares War on Cities

Japan: US Signing of Japan Tariffs: Reject Self-Righteousness and Fulfill Agreement

Russia: Trump the Multipolarist*

Turkey: Blood and Fury: Killing of Charlie Kirk, Escalating US Political Violence

Related Articles

Malaysia: The Tariff Trap: Why America’s Protectionist Gambit Only Tightens China’s Grip on Global Manufacturing

Germany: It’s Not Europe’s Fault

Spain: State Capitalism in the US

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

India: Will New US Envoy Help to Repair Ties under Threat?