The Los Angeles Times and KTLA conducted a poll of Californians to determine their support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and their feelings about the state Supreme Court’s decision allowing same-sex marriage.
According to the headline in the print edition, “Californians slimly reject gay marriage.” The Times website’s front page says, “Californians reject gay marriage by a bit.”
And the online version headline is:
Times Poll: Californians narrowly reject gay marriage
Voters also back a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, a new Times/KTLA survey shows.
Los Angeles Times staff writer Cathleen Decker writes the story about this narrow support for an amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Here’s how she begins:
By bare majorities, Californians reject the state Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex marriages and back a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at the November ballot that would outlaw such unions, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.
Italics mine. There are four paragraphs of narrative before we get to the numbers:
Either way, the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters.
Yes, you read that right. In the Los Angeles Times newsroom, 19 percentage points constitute slim, narrow, bare majorities. Gosh, I wonder how the story would be played if the opposite results were found. I know, as Barbie says, that math is hard. But this is truly inexcusable and the Times’ cheerleading in support of same-sex marriage is anything but journalism.
The article goes on to say, by the way, that the 19-percent margin is really not that much and that the measure is doomed. The other barely-there, slim and narrow margin — with regard to whether people supported or opposed the Supreme Court measure — was 11 percentage points. The poll, by the way, was not of likely voters or even just registered voters but, rather, the general California population.
 | Posted at 5:02 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (42) |
May 23, 2008, at 5:26 pm
Doesn’t surprise me a bit. Having lived through the divorce referenda in Ireland, where the pro-divorce lobby chipped away bit by bit until they achieved their aim, this sounds exactly the same.
In 1986, the results of the first referendum were 63% “No”, 37% “Yes”. This was obviously (!) a closely-run thing, leading to the second referendum in 1995 where the “Yes” side won by a whopping 50.3% to 49.7%. The people have spoken! The Constitution is amended! With such a huge margin in favour, there is obviously no need for further campaigning on the issue!
So, am I surprised to see cheerleading along these lines for the California amendment? Am I, hell!
May 23, 2008, at 5:57 pm
I think the only good thing about the amendment being on the ballot this year is that it’s such a huge election year the GOP vs the Dems will trump everything else. But I have been staggered by the extraordinary bias in the reporting by the California media. I shouldn’t but I am. I for one hope this amendment passes by a landslide margin to shut up these liberals once and for all!
May 23, 2008, at 6:12 pm
Yeah, I had that same reaction too, Molly. The Times doesn’t do itself favors with its word play. Anyone else surprised to see that the 18-34 year old cohort is the most conservative on this issue? And women? It makes me wonder if this poll is actually valid.
May 23, 2008, at 6:38 pm
Your reporting makes it seem like we have nothing to worry about, but we need to be on highest alert and get every vote out! You see, in order for a constitutional amendment to pass in California, it must pass with a majority of the votes. That means 50%. If 54% are in favor of the amendment, that is a margin of only 4%, not 19%. Those against the amendment just have to shave that down to 49.9% for us to lose this battle.
May 23, 2008, at 7:35 pm
[…] >> Only in California. Only at the LA Times. The text: “Times Poll: Californians narrowly reject gay marriage” - By bare majorities, Californians reject the state Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex marriages and back a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at the November ballot that would outlaw such unions, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.” Four paragraphs before you get to the numbers: “Either way, the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters. Yep, 19 point margin = barely there. share: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
May 23, 2008, at 7:37 pm
I agree with Frank that the “bare majority” refers to the 54% since that is only 4% above 50% of the population sample.
May 23, 2008, at 7:46 pm
By the way, I think this misunderstanding comes from mistaking plurality for majority.
If the numbers were 48% to 45%, there would be no majority but 48% would be a plurality.
May 23, 2008, at 7:51 pm
(Wish there was an edit button….)
To make myself clear, here’s some basic definitions.
Majority:
The number more than half of the total.
Plurality:
The number by which the vote of the winning choice in such a contest exceeds that of the closest opponent.
So, there was a 4% majority but a 19% plurality.
May 23, 2008, at 7:59 pm
Well, dmh, thanks (I guess) for the sermon, but this blog is supposed to be about media coverage.
In 2004, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 51% of the American public believed that “homosexuality should be accepted by society”. Among the national press, a whopping 88% felt that way. More notably, 42% of the American public believed “homosexuality should be discouraged by society” while a mere 5% of the national press felt that way. Among self-described “liberals” in the media, 95% believed homosexuality should be “accepted by society” and even 84% of so-called “moderates” in the media agreed! I can’t imagine there are anything but self-identified “liberals” and “moderates” reporting for the Los Angeles Times.
The normalization of homosexuality is a core value of the American professional class (of which the national press is an important part). None of us should be the least surprised by this story.
The Pew report can be found at:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=829
May 23, 2008, at 8:35 pm
[…] Many have reported on this ridiculous LA Times story (Times Poll: Californians narrowly reject gay marriage) about how Californians “just barely” support retaining the definition of marriage in the state (Truth: Marriage wins by 19%, 54-35), but I need to point something else out. […]
May 23, 2008, at 8:46 pm
I looked around to see how others were reporting the poll. The San Jose Mercury News online headline was “Poll: 54 percent back California marriage amendment” but they went on to put in the AP story that quoted the LA Times report that the support could evaporate. That bastion of conservatism the, San Francisco Chronicle, did the same. So the Associated Press picked up the story and various other papers uncritically used it.
There are multiple layers of sin here. First the initial story was terrible. Then the AP picked it up and distributed it. Then other papers used it uncritically. This is a sad illustration about how a badly reported story develops “legs” and goes on to spread.
May 23, 2008, at 11:12 pm
To me it raises interesting questions even beyond this specific instance of the Times’ dubious headline of the CA polling… What standards (if any) do journalists have to use descriptive words like “narrowly, barely, inconclusively, substantially, convincingly, resoundingly, overwhelmingly”, etc.
I wonder if there’s any guide in the AP stylebook for using such terminology, such as comparing with a reference point from a previous time or another place, or if it’s simply arbitrary. To me these descriptors often serve to just reveal subtle (or not-so-subtle) bias. Why not report “just the facts” and let the reader decide what spin to put on it?
May 24, 2008, at 12:23 am
I would be curious to see how well their polling did in predicting the results of the referendum that the court has now over-ruled. The 2000(?) one.
I just can’t get worked up any more over the latest media outrage. It’s clear we have a completely corrupted press not only in America but in all of the Western world. It is largely responsible for global anti-Americanism and other pathologies directly related to disinformation.
May 24, 2008, at 12:57 am
Opinion surveys have “predicted” margins that under-estimate the actual Yes votes on marriage measures by, on average, 10%-plus.
There is no “undecided” or “don’t know” vote on the ballot so the *margin* in favor of Yes , as per the opinion survey results, is 19% and not 4%.
When the marrige statute was approved by California voters last time, the *margin* was 63 to 37 — i.e. a point spread of 26.
Take these observations together and the story is not as it was widely reported to be. The marriage amendment is not on the ropes.
The Yes side appears to have received a boost from the Supreme Court decision that appeared just prior to this survey.
That boost may fade, I dunno, however, if past trends in all marriage amendment campaigns are the recent history by which we can forsee the very near future, then, look for a repeat victory for the Yes side — by a very strong margin.
But campaigns are held for a reason. Winners do not stay home — neither as defeatists based on pre-emptive media reports of failure, not as triumphalists who count their chickens before their eggs have hatched.
May 24, 2008, at 1:57 am
Sorry, what has this got to do with the press not getting religion?
I mean you’ve already covered the whole “unrepresentative sample of ministers’ opinions” point, which I think was quite fair. But now where are we? “the press…just doesn’t share our bias”?
May 24, 2008, at 3:15 am
Stoo,
It’s relevant to this blog whether or not the press cheerleads for same-sex marriage, as they’re doing here.
May 24, 2008, at 8:28 am
Mollie (#16):
I am with Stoo on this one. The fact that the press shows bias on this issue is not per se a failure to get religion.
May 24, 2008, at 9:37 am
Chairm there might not be an “undecided” or “don’t know” on the ballot, but people certainly can (and do) leave the question *blank* on their ballots, thus accomplishing the same thing.
The reporting was biased, however the lead *is* only 4%. Yes, some of those undecideds might shift to yes at the end, but by emphasizing a 19% lead, opponents of same-sex marriage are being lulled into a false sense of security. The powerful California gay-rights machine hasn’t even begun to get into gear yet…
May 24, 2008, at 10:00 am
STOO:
Let me ask one thing: You are saying that the debates in America over moral, cultural and religious issues linked to homosexuality do not have anything to do with disagreements rooted, in large part, in clashing religious traditions?
May 24, 2008, at 10:04 am
See, while I think this blog has a very useful purpose, I think a potential danger is slipping into just generic conservative-religious grumbling. Which I think is the case here. There’s no failure to properly cover a religious issue, just a biased position that religious people don’t like.
May 24, 2008, at 11:00 am
When my wife read the LA times headline to me I said don’t worry the times is famous for its bad polls. They famously got it wrong during the whole Grey Davis recall debacle.
As to the poster who was surprized that young people were more conservative on this issue than other segments of the general population, don’t be. In California whites are a declining segment of the youth demographic. Latinos and Blacks are more likely to be conservataive on sexuality issues. Unfortunately they are less likely to vote.
May 24, 2008, at 11:33 am
I think the fact that the press is consistently cheerleading for far leftist moral and social causes, and inasmuch as the Religious Left are consistently quoted and the conservative religionists are consistently minimized and at times demonized by the media, I think this particular issue and many others are extremely valid topics and quite relevant for this blog.
And, incidentally, it would be relevant if media were consistently slanting stories to the Right and demonizing Leftist viewpoints. (LOL)
The warping of the poll numbers to make the gay marriage cause seem inevitable, even in the face of a large opposition, is downright frightening, and more at home in totalitarian nations in which the press is State-run.
It’s very easy to see why conservatives are very cynical about the media.
May 24, 2008, at 11:48 am
If you have a beef with the L.A. Times, take it up with Governor Bradley.
May 24, 2008, at 2:41 pm
You realise it’s possible to “get” something whilst taking a stance that conflicts with it?
However much a newspaper cheerleads for something, and however much that offends you guys, doesn’t in itself mean they fail to understand traditional religious perspectives. Maybe they just *disagree* with those perspectives.
May 24, 2008, at 2:46 pm
ok sorry that was a general “you”, not responding to Gerry
May 24, 2008, at 3:21 pm
It’s not about bias. It’s about the common and colloquial misuse of the term ‘majority’. People commonly use the word ‘majority’ to mean ‘most’. Majority should only be used in reference to votes. Sorry to be pedantic, but the meaning of words matters.
May 24, 2008, at 3:36 pm
“the press…just doesn’t share our biasâ€
Stoo, since when does questioning a certain bias in the media equate to demands to “share” an opposing bias? Has it become unreasonable and unrealistic to expect such a lofty ideal as media neutrality/objectivity?
Some would seem to deny the bias, others seem to justify it. Seems to me you can’t have it both ways.
May 24, 2008, at 5:15 pm
Francesca and danr:
This board is not about left-wing media bias per se. It’s about the mainstream media not getting religion.
Posts such as this one that dwell on biased reporting without being able to point out a failure to get religion, dilute the purpose of this board just as much as off-topic political argument does.
May 24, 2008, at 5:35 pm
This site often takes the media to task for poor reporting, outright or subtle bias, and incomplete reporting. All of which seem legitimate in this discussion, and all seem to be present, to one degree or another.
May 24, 2008, at 6:02 pm
Dave’s exactly right. To grumble about bias in general seems to be slipping from the stated mission of pointing out failures to “get religion”.
“Has it become unreasonable and unrealistic to expect such a lofty ideal as media neutrality/objectivity?”
I dunno, I’m used to not expecting it in newspapers.
May 24, 2008, at 6:35 pm
I don’t understand why some people gripe that this or that topic is outside the “stated mission” of GetReligion.org. Somehow, I don’t think the GetReligionistas have to justify what they decide to write about to anyone: it’s their site and I consider it a privilege to read and comment here. If you don’t like it, don’t spend time here.
May 24, 2008, at 6:40 pm
Oh sure, they can write what they want. It’s just a shame - this blog serves a useful purpose and Generic Conservative Religious Grumbling is kind of the dark side that we would hope it doesn’t slip towards.
May 24, 2008, at 6:44 pm
Stoo,
As I already mentioned, I’m a crazy libertarian who doesn’t even believe the government should be setting marriage policy. And I’m livid at the poor reporting of this story.
Writing against media advocacy on this issue that could not be more religiously infused is kind of what this blog is all about. That the media happen to be so blindly in the bag for same-sex marriage is the fault of the mainstream media, not this blog.
May 24, 2008, at 7:17 pm
Any topic can be religiously infused if you look at it closely enough. The obits. The wedding notices. The stories about close-call and fatal accidents and shootings.
Make that “some” media. In my neck of the woods the media are studiedly neutral on the topic.
May 24, 2008, at 8:12 pm
So this blog *isn’t* just about the media not “getting” religion? Is it also about the media not being sympathetic enough to religious worldviews? Cos those aren’t the same thing.
Also, like Dave says, you can throw in a religious angle on just about anything…
May 24, 2008, at 8:19 pm
William’s lessons on the difference between majority and plurality are appreciated, but I don’t think it really matters. When voting on a constitutional amendment, there are only two choices, “yes” or “no”. There is not a third option! That blurs the distinction between plurality and majority here; when it comes time to vote, a majority is guaranteed.
So if this were an accurate exit poll, then the undecideds would not have counted, and the amendment would win 60.7% to 39.3%. That is not a slim majority by any reasonably definition! The only way to fairly interpret this as a slim majority is if all of the current undecideds broke “no”. That is obviously not likely to happen.
May 24, 2008, at 9:35 pm
STOO:
It is about the ability of the MSM to cover accurately the religious views of people on the left and the right. But a quick look at the major media bias issues will show you that, on moral and cultural issues, the problem has been covering the traditional forms of faith (and religious minorities).
You need to read the New York Times self study, for starters, and the classic LA Times study of media bias on abortion issues. Google “David Shaw”, Los Angeles Times, abortion, bias.
May 24, 2008, at 9:40 pm
Here is a link to a tribute to the late David Shaw — who was no person’s conservative — that includes info and links about that classic LATs series.
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=966
May 25, 2008, at 12:38 am
MCG, you hit the nail on the head.
The newsmedia also gets itself knotted up when trying to paint marriage as a Republican issue or as a conservative issue.
More moderates and liberals, combined, voted in favor of the past state amendments than did conservatives. That’s in absolute terms, which is what counts when ballots are cast.
Likewise, more Independants and Democrats, combined, voted in favor of the amendments than did Republicans, in absolute numbers.
On the other hand, various criteria for religiousity (often crude criteria such as attendance at worship services) indicate a definite split between the modestly to very religious (being pro marriage amendments) and the modestly to very NOT religious (being anti amendments). This has been a strong trend both in opinion surveys and in exit polls.
That is why the issue of marriage, in terms of the “gay marriage” kerfuffle, the newsmedia are only to happy to report that the man-woman criterion of marriage is a purely religious criterion.
Of course, it marital status is not based on a purely secular set of criteria, but neither does marriage exist as a purely secular institution. The religious and the secular bases for marriage are intertwined, as per a foundational social institution in a pluralistic society, and, as such, are inseperable.
The newsmedia generally portrays religious objections, or even merely secular objections voiced by religious people, as unwelcomed in the public square. This is in complete accord with the advocacy of “gay marriage” but a huge exception is often made.
That is, religion is given special credibility when the speaker is in favor of “gay marriage” but is treated with hostility, by the typical newsmedia representative, when the man-woman criterion of marriage is defended from religiousity. They exagerate the significance of unrepresentative minority views and also undermine the significance of religious expression of very representative majority views on the subject of marriage.
The bias is against mainstream religion FIRST, I think, and in favor of “gay marriage” as a BY-PRODUCT of this hostility.
May 25, 2008, at 3:03 pm
tmatt wrote (#37):
So when I see an article about climate change, whatsoever its bias, which doesn’t mention that global warming has become an issue of faith among the theological liberal, should I report it to GR for its failure to cover accurately the religious views of people on the left?
May 26, 2008, at 4:16 pm
[…] LA Times: Some Voters Against Gay Marriage The Los Angeles Times followed up the California State Supreme Court gay marriage coup with a poll to discover how state residents feel about the decision and a possible constitutional amendment to overturn it. As Mollie at GetReligion notes, the reporting on the poll is a bit, ah, slanted: The Los Angeles Times and KTLA conducted a poll of Californians to determine their support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and their feelings about the state Supreme Court’s decision allowing same-sex marriage. […]
May 27, 2008, at 5:36 am
I am a little baffled by this post. The phrase “bare majorities” is precisely accurate. The majorities were by 2% or 4%. The phrase does not refer to the difference between levels of support, just the amount above “majority” (50.1%). The problem is not with the LA Times grasp of math, but with your grasp of the English language. But perhaps you are not accustomed to precise language in the news reports you follow.