Research averse barrister wrong again
PP boy Jeremy Sear finds less than ideal a question asked in a Newspoll:
Had Jeremy done his research he would have found the actual, neutrally-worded Newspoll question:
What a neutrally-worded question!The "question" as quoted by Jeremy from The Australian:
According to the Newspoll survey last weekend, 53 per cent of voters say they are against the government’s plan to combat global warming with a carbon price that puts up the cost of gas, electricity and petrol.Jeremy doesn't notice that the "question" lacks a question mark and isn't the Newspoll question at all – it's a characterisation of the question provided by the article's author Dennis Shanahan.
Had Jeremy done his research he would have found the actual, neutrally-worded Newspoll question:
UNDER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S PLAN TO PUT A PRICE ON CARBON, THE PRICE OF ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH AS PETROL, ELECTRICITY AND GAS MAY BECOME MORE EXPENSIVE. WOULD YOU PERSONALLY BE IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST PAYING MORE FOR ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH AS PETROL, ELECTRICITY AND GAS IF IT WOULD HELP TO SLOW GLOBAL WARMING?Will Jeremy correct his error? Not likely.
Labels: embarrassment, Jeremy Sear, Pure Poison, research-averse, slack, wrong. Crikey
posted by Anonymous at 4:57 PM |
2 Comments:
In Sear’s latest ‘defend to the death, all attacks on The Greens’ piece, he is once again applying the rules of proportional representation to that one Green MP in saying he represents 11.7% of the population who voted for a Green candidate, and that it is highly undemocratic that he only gets a 1 seat in 150 vote in parliament.
Fair enough I say, we’ll do the same. Which means the coalition is in government.
Er Beck?
"...THE PRICE OF ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH AS PETROL, ELECTRICITY AND GAS MAY BECOME MORE EXPENSIVE...."
Makes it a pushed question.
Post a Comment
<< Home