4 ms·
Behind a paywall, otherwise would have read. However, I do appreciate the approach to poll how the masses actually feel about what decisions their overlords are
by mojomark 2y ago
Behind a paywall, otherwise would have read. However, I do appreciate the approach to poll how the masses actually feel about what decisions their overlords are implementing. I feel like the former is as important, if not more so than the latter - every story/ongoing coverage involving war/major international moves and events should cover both perspectives continuously IMO.
How does the Chinese populous actually feel about the prospect of having to lose loved ones in a seemingly imminent invasion of Taiwan? How does the Taiwanese populous feel about that prospect and the US/allies coming to their aid. How does the US populous feel about the prospect of defending Taiwan (do the even understand the issues at stake)?
Why do I have to search for answers to these questions so regularly instead of reading about it in the very article reporting the event in the first place?
- edflsafoiewq 2y agoPolling is the augury of modern democracies, attempting to discern the will of God through subtle and obscure signs, and about as effective.
- jfengel 2y agoIt's pretty good at telling you the obvious. It's not great at telling you anything subtle or unexpected.
- jfengel 2y agoI am reasonably certain that (a) there will not be an invasion of Taiwan, but (b) feinting at it is fairly popular in China. The Americans feel queasy about it, which is what makes it so popular in China. An actual war would be less popular, but as long as there is uncertainty about it, they get the benefit. The US has been doing "strategic ambiguity" about Taiwan as well, for decades, and this is the logical continuation.
- PaulHoule 2y agoBeing a workshop for the world has been a good gig for China, throwing it away for Taiwan looks risky. On the other hand, having it as an ongoing issue to motivate nationalism is priceless.
- PaulHoule 2y agoThe technique they used is a focus group rather than polling. Rather than asking a large number a long list of specific questions they interview a smaller number of people in detail, which can reveal things that polling misses. The VICOM-SPUTNIK poll is, in a certain sense, a very high quality poll which polls 1600 people every day with a large panel of questions, there isn't anything probability-based in the US that comes close to how often it runs: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/ipoll/study/31121192 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/ipoll/study/31121192 Trouble is you can't trust that people will give honest answers in a society like that; there are special methods that have been done on a small scale in places like China [1] (and also in the US to suss out "do people not give honest answers about Trump"/) where you might have a list like How many of the following have you done in the last? (a) attended a Falun Gong exercise group (b) gone jogging (c) visited a Buddhist temple (d) ate mushrooms ... and give half the people a list with (a) in it and give the other half a list without it and compare the sums; you lose a little statistical power but not much. I don't know about it being done for Putin's approval rating though. [1] for the other China: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20531680241234833?icid=int.sj-full-text.citing-articles.2 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20531680241234833?i...
- mojomark 2y agoFair enough. So, the bottom line is that that type of journalism is much harder than just reporting what you can see through a camera lens or reported on state media. I am always impressed by those embedded journalists. I mean, talk about guts.