I don't understand your reasoning. Are you saying that because we cannot establish "the real" in an objective sense then the perception of the sample group is tainted and useless? If so, I imagine that most polls don't pass this muster. If, in your example, you did have reliable evidence from another source that a story you were reading was false would that tell us anything useful?
Brian On Jan 7, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Robert Paul wrote:
"According to the Gallup News Service, a December survey of a representative sample of 569 adult Americans revealed that fully 56 percent believe that major news media coverage of the situation in Iraq is generally inaccurate while only 4 out of 10 Americans agree that it is accurate.This would only be meaningful if it were assumed that this 'representative sample' knew 'the real' situation in Iraq on independent grounds. My reason for believing that a newspaper/ television account of something was inaccurate would surely be that I had directly observed what happened or had reliable evidence from other sources that what took place was not what was reported; that something important had been left out, or something said to have taken place hadn't. Polls like this tell us nothing useful.
