Not really, no. I am upset at the type of binary framing you are deploying here being present even in well established research institutions to push specific viewpoints.
Like, say, having a study series that in 2022 reports a 57% neutral answer headline that result as “few people think sports betting is good” and following that up several years later with a 50% neutral answer as “Americans increasingly see sports betting as a bad thing”. That’s what you call framing, it’s not supposed to be there, and it may not annoy me much, because this subject is irrelevant, but it does annoy me.
I also take some issue with the wording of the question, if you must know, which is “Thinking about the fact that betting on sports is now legal in much of the country, do you think this is generally…”. I would question why they needed to remind people that this comes from a regulatory change if they weren’t going to report it that way, especially since it forces them to keep the same framing in 2025 when they follow up.
But hey, that’s nitpicking. So is the whole thing. But it’s still a bad headline and a bad way to frame the results. And arguing from authority isn’t going to change that. I’m not particularly impressed or reverent when it comes to Ipsos or Pew’s methodology for these, they aren’t that complicated.
Not really, no. I am upset at the type of binary framing you are deploying here being present even in well established research institutions to push specific viewpoints.
Like, say, having a study series that in 2022 reports a 57% neutral answer headline that result as “few people think sports betting is good” and following that up several years later with a 50% neutral answer as “Americans increasingly see sports betting as a bad thing”. That’s what you call framing, it’s not supposed to be there, and it may not annoy me much, because this subject is irrelevant, but it does annoy me.
I also take some issue with the wording of the question, if you must know, which is “Thinking about the fact that betting on sports is now legal in much of the country, do you think this is generally…”. I would question why they needed to remind people that this comes from a regulatory change if they weren’t going to report it that way, especially since it forces them to keep the same framing in 2025 when they follow up.
But hey, that’s nitpicking. So is the whole thing. But it’s still a bad headline and a bad way to frame the results. And arguing from authority isn’t going to change that. I’m not particularly impressed or reverent when it comes to Ipsos or Pew’s methodology for these, they aren’t that complicated.