While data on child abuse remains problematic, this isn’t a board for discussion of the underlying data, but, rather, for how journalists should treat these discussions.

In the Newsweek article I linked to, it identified the sources of the data and also noted that some people think the rates of abuse are much higher (related to the idea that sexual abuse is an underreported crime).

In any case, that’s the primary issue here — reporting where the data comes from and who’s behind it. For instance, in the Newsweek story, it said that the John Jay report was commissioned by the USCCB. That’s good to disclose.

Like or Dislike: 0  1

I just think that the funding and purpose of the funding should have been disclosed.

Mollie, in another post you cited a statistical claim that 10% of adult males are child molesters. Did you subject that claim to this level of scrutiny?

Like or Dislike: 1  0

I think this is common polling behavior. And I can see where it’s in the interest of PRRI to deny that the questions are designed to push public opinion rather than report it.

The poll begins by putting people in mind of the problems of the state government and the growth of government before asking whether you think gay couples should be “allowed” to marry or whether there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship. These are the ways you phrase things if you’re trying to suggest better and worse alternatives.

No biggie — polls do this all the time — but it’s easy to see why the group was given over $100,000 to advance an agenda.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I certainly don’t mean to. And not just because I don’t consider “liberal” to be a bad word. As I mentioned earlier, I did not suggest that there was reason to be skeptical of the study.

But it’s not news that there are conservative and liberal pollsters. You can be a conservative or liberal scholar and do honest work. I am sure that Jones and company are in that camp.

I just think that the funding and purpose of the funding should have been disclosed.

Like or Dislike: 0  1

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Also, are you not the same Dr. Jones who has worked at the liberal groups People for the American Way and the Center for American Progress? Who advises progressive religious groups?

Like or Dislike: 0  1

Are you saying that the Haas Foundation didn’t fund this poll or that their goal of giving you a six-figure gift to help achieve “gay equality” was incorrect?

If so, I think you should have them correct the record immediately.

Like or Dislike: 0  1

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Fascinating about the coverage in the Spanish language press. We miss a lot not covering major minority press, be it language or ethnicity.

@Chris,

If the prior statistics had been expressed, showing say a 38% approval in the year 2000 changing to a 48% approval in 2007 and apparently plateauing for a couple of years, it would still “indicate public opinion on same-sex marriage may be changing toward acceptance.” Lacking that kind of perspective, it leaves us with so bare a majority that the interval of confidence could easily wipe it out.

Statistical analysis, alas, should be taught at an early age and because we bias our mathematics education towards algebra instead, the ability to meaningfully evaluate a study is almost absent whether in the medical press or the popular press.

And of course they were surveying Californians, not voters whose strong opinions may motivate them to show up in the polling place. In which case it would be interesting to see if the 49% against gay marriage had changed in how strongly they believe between 2008 and 2009.

@Mollie,

Room for Debate is not news but opinion, and as such was asking about the way movies should portray gays, not about the pros and cons of gay marriage. So it is pretty irrelevant to your story, which rightly suggests that the writers should do more research and disclose the purposes of polls. It would not have used up much word count to parenthetically identify the source and bias of the funding.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

It seems to me that, per some of the not-yet-spiked comments on this blog, opposition to same-sex marriage is a priori evidence of “animus against Gay people.” Mollie’s good standing in LCMS would be an obvious tie “to the usual suspect organizations.”

It’s just more framing the terms of the debate to shut down debate, like the word “homophobia.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ideology simply means a particular orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group.

Focus on the Family is non-partisan. Family Research Council is non-partisan. But if they put out a poll about same-sex marriage, we all know the media would identify them as having a position on the matter.

I mean, this really has to be one of the silliest comments I’ve ever received.

Of course, normally the commentary here — no matter the particular ideology that is behind it — is usually pretty good.

Like or Dislike: 0  1

The description from the MSM isn’t inaccurate or “keeping that information secret.” It may be omitting the group’s goals, but non-partisan is not necessarily inaccurate - not at all.

Like I said, your own words are very telling and are really rather self-defeating of your criticism.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

I didn’t say to be skeptical of the PRRI study. I honestly haven’t looked into how it was done or anything.

I simply think that the aims of the poll be disclosed. PRRI was very up-front about it, so was the foundation that put the money up. The media should simply report it. Keeping that information secret is just kind of odd.

It would be like not mentioning that the John Jay study was commissioned by the USCCB. That would be … bizarre.

Like or Dislike: 0  0