keano_afc wrote: » The survey says 75% of doctors say X. This is a lie. Thats the problem.
NuMarvel wrote: » There's evidence to back up the problems with the statistics being cited by anti-repealers. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for you, or anyone else, to cite evidence of the problems with this survey.
keano_afc wrote: » Its got to be up there with pro-Repealers who dispute these percentages when presented by certain groups, being perfectly happy to accept the same thing in a national newspaper.
NuMarvel wrote: » Oh, the irony of an anti-repealer complaining about inaccurate percentages being cited as fact on a public platform...
keano_afc wrote: » Its an unreasonable and inaccurate assumption to present a % figure as fact in a national newspaper, when the reality is not the case.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » The figure wasnt plucked from their arse. It was plucked from the people who responded. The IMT know which of the respondents are doctors because they would be on their free list. So it is a reasonable assumption.
keano_afc wrote: » So you think when printing the results of a survey newspapers should pluck figures from their ar$e and cite "reasonable assumption"?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » unreasonable in your opinion. You dont know that the reality is not the case.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » It is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority who responded were doctors.
keano_afc wrote: » I have no idea what the breakdown of respondents was. Nobody does. Thats the point. So to put "75% of doctors", when nobody knows how many doctors took the survey, is misleading.
applehunter wrote: » It's not in any way a scientific poll but is presented as such in bold print on the front page of the Examiner "75% of doctors support 12 week access (to abortion)"
Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: » It's a very reasonable implication for the reasons I pointed our. Any chance of you answering my question?
applehunter wrote: » I don't trust our media to report on the referendum fairly. That poll today is another example of why.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » what in particular was unfair about the poll in the examiner?
keano_afc wrote: » Anybody who wants to buy the magazine can buy it. What percentage of the respondents were doctors? You seem to know more about it than me.
keano_afc wrote: » What percentage of the respondents were doctors? The headline insinuates that all who replied were medical doctors. You dont dispute that?
Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: » In 2016, it had a circulation of fewer than 7k copies. It's a trade publication that sells mostly through subscriptions. Where would you put the number of non medical professionals who bought that issue and responded to a poll expressly aimed at medical professionals? The straw grasping going on by pro life posters isn't screaming confidence, I must say.
keano_afc wrote: » Anybody who buys it.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » and who do you think buys? Are there a lot of non-medical people buying it? if you have some info please share it?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » who do you think reads the Irish Medical Times?
keano_afc wrote: » That we're led to believe it was a poll of doctors. It was a poll of people who read a magazine, which could be anybody.
seamus wrote: » The IMT survey is 75% in favour when you exclude the "no opinion"s
keano_afc wrote: » The Journal and the Irish Times have pulled this "survey" from their online versions. Its the very definition of fake news.
