Remember back after the 2019 election when Australia’s political media were cautioned not to take polls so seriously any more? Looks like we’ve long blown past the amber lights left flashing by that year’s big polling miss.
Just four years later polls for an election that is still almost two years away are once again reliably front page news of their sponsoring mastheads where, like spark plugs in the political news cycle, they fire the journalistic pistons into another pump-up of the narrative of the day.
Reading global news tells us that Australia’s media — traditional, digital, social — appears to be the most polling-obsessed of any comparable country. Each Newspoll is puffed on the front pages and through the social distribution of News Corp’s outlets. The Nine mastheads do the same with Resolve.
Just how obsessed is Australia’s traditional media? According to a report in the polling industry’s review of its 2019 election miss, one in four of all front-page election stories in that campaign were about the polls. Across the five-week campaign, the 16 national polls generated 613 articles in newspapers alone.
There is both a commercial imperative and a lunge for relevance. News Corp and Nine have an interest in boosting the newsworthiness of the polls. They’ve paid for them, after all. And in an era of sophisticated political management of news, where even most investigative exclusives came out of self-interested drops out of government, independent polling is the one last play traditional media have to make it appear that what they do matters.
That calls for an intricate parsing of the most minor of changes from one poll to the next to dig out the nuggets of data that can be rewritten into a Shock! Horror! news exclusive.
However publishers angle the figures — almost always with a “bad news” take — they can be relied on to lead the ABC’s bulletins and the new aggregators in newsletters (yes, in Crikey too) before it’s chewed over on #auspol social media and embedded in how the news out of Canberra gets understood and reported.
It’s one of the key practices that empowers News Corp to shape the news cycle. Ever since last year’s election, its interpretative dance around its proprietary Newspoll data has produced a rhythmic call to its base: don’t worry, the Albanese “honeymoon” is over.
The romance was over again last week, in The Australian at least, off the back of statistically insignificant shifts in both a Newspoll and the views of Queensland regional voters in the Fadden electorate. Sure, busted clocks etc, they’ll be right sooner or later. And sure, regular opinion polling is kind of interesting. It’s just that it doesn’t tell us very much — certainly not enough to justify the solid certainty of newsworthiness that Australia insists on giving it.
The media love to make the polls all about themselves — about the decisions they’ve made about what’s news. Notoriously, The Australian ties each shift in Newspoll to whatever particular campaign was on the front page of the masthead in the previous week.
All these stories are based on the conceit that voters pay attention to journalism and change their minds accordingly. Here’s a bad news poll: after the Canberra gallery spent the past month (rightly) critiquing the use of external consultants (specifically for leaking confidential data), the Essential poll found this week that just one-third of Australians had heard about the confidentiality abuse and knew what it was about; 40% knew nothing about it.
How and why people decide who to vote for remains something of a black box, literally and figuratively. As one of Australia’s smartest researchers, Dr Rebecca Huntley, acknowledged the day after the pollsters got the 2019 election so wrong: “The ballot box has always been an imprecise tool for measuring public sentiment on complex issues, especially ones that provoke the spectrum of emotion in us.” (She was talking particularly about climate change.)
Yet Australia’s media read polls with the assumption of a more or less stable electorate, centred on politically median voters shifting one way or the other from one election to the next. But increasingly we’re coming to understand that elections turn less on shifting attitudes than on shifting demographics.
It’s indelicate to say, but from one election to the next, about half a million of us (usually older, conservative voters) will die, replaced by about the same number of young (usually Labor or Green-leaning) voters who’ll turn 18. Meanwhile, the electoral roll grows with new citizens joining. People move, too. Census data shows about 39% move house over two election cycles.
Australian Electoral Commission data already shows the electorate has grown by about 2% just since the last election — about a quarter of the growth being newly enrolled Indigenous voters. (Speaking of demographic change, there are now more Indigenous voters on the roll than in all of Tasmania.)
Perhaps if we want to report how society is changing, we should report these shifts with the same fine detail that News and Nine apply to their opinion polls.
Agree with all the article says about the obsession with polling. It’s lazy and self-serving and saves the trouble of trying to report real news, investigation or analysis. It’s the news media equivalent of junk food, that wonderful product that can cause obesity and malnutrition simultaneously.
And that’s an example of a more general problem, the basic innumeracy or ignorance of statistics and probability that enables ludicrous abuses of data, such as wild extrapolations from inadequate samples where a small variation over a short time should be disregarded as noise rather than reported as a trend. But the ignorance of the media is too often wilful to the point of malice; the motivation for such reporting is not any desire to inform the public.
Journalists should have to do a course in basic statistics, and learn the meaning of basic principles such as “margin of error.” There was an article by Michelle Grattan once predicting an election upset based on a 2% change. And also articles based on an internet survey.
Don’t get me started…. not just any (base) presentation of NOM, immigration and population, but in general on any issue, lack of essential literacies amongst media and politicians including data, science, research process and critical analysis; easily gamed and astroturfed for PR.
Polling is simply horse race calling for media content that mirrors sports entertainment and gambling….
Forgot, the big one is real estate data or ‘analysis’ in FIRE media…..and listening to anyone talking (up) property, but not knowing the difference between price and real value….
So what’s happening with Rundle, any updates?
GAWN!
Well he’s still on the website listed as Correspondent-At-Large- if he was ‘gawn’ presumably they would take him off? Crikey’s approach to this whole thing has been a mix of incompetence and cowardice throughout, it really has.
Agreed. A severe case of overly woke – & risking losing one of Australia’s best writers.
I wish him all the best, but I find his writing annoying. Too clever by half is how I’ve described it in the past.
Australia’s Piers Morgan
Not how your efforts can be described.
Surely not!
Cancelled?
He’s necessary and provides insight none of the other crikey journo’s or anyone else can, he’s obviously not always right,
don’t shoot yourself in the foot crikey.
If their collective head were the target there would be no significant damage of anything useful.
Aren’t the polls also about the power play; the Murdoch media keeping pressure on the duopoly to toe the line?
If Labor step out of their neo-liberal straitjacket a quick poll will whip them into shape.
And as a great as it has been to see the Greens and Teals disrupt the duopoly, the way the seating is done it’s hard to see them ever being able to form an actual government even as a coalition junior partner.
Interesting article yesterday on Inside Story about the unmentionable-name media spinning poll results.
https://insidestory.org.au/the-end-of-labors-honeymoon-and-the-collapse-of-womens-support-for-the-voice/
I used to work for a CEO who checked our company’s share price “at least every hour”. Presumably for the same reason the MSM check polling data, i.e. because it’s there. Happy ending: one of the tipsheet analysts quoted his comment publicly and soon enough the board realised on the basis of other consistent vacuities that he was a couple of cents short of a full valuation. So it is with inter-election polling.
Very good. I have similar experiences. It can be seen as a modern version of the ancient practices of augury or divination. The practitioners study these things for signs and portents with just much justification, reason and benefit as our ancestors examined the entrails of sacrificed animals.
“Plucking the entrails forth, they could not find a heart within the beast.” “Dutton?” “Yep”
Oh the irony that this article appears below another Crikey article containing significant hyperbole over a recent poll run by the West Australian newspaper.
Crikey too it seems is somewhat obsessed with polling.
Those innumeracy issues do not apply to William Bowe. If he is drawing our attention to some polling you can assume he knows whereof he speaks.
Mr Warren has freely admitted that Crikey has done it’s fair share of quoting Polls.