Fox News Takes Positive SOTU Poll Down And Replaces With Negative Poll

Fox News Takes Positive SOTU Poll Down And Replaces With Negative Poll


A vigilant reader spotted this.

First, Fox News puts up a PollDaddy poll immediately after the SOTU. Given the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the speech, these numbers actually seem a little low. Still, it is

Here’s the thing. It was posted on this page which now is no longer available.

The reader writes, “I personally saw this on their web site myself, which is why I know it exists. They were promoting it until this morning.”

So what’s up now instead?


So why did they switch polls? I think the theories are obvious, but it did happen.

And do note that the first poll had more votes than the second.

Just saying…

  • kranky kritter

    Is a conspiracy the only explanation?

    FWIW, I flipped channels between msnbc, cnn, and fox last night. I thought Brit Hume and Juan Williams led a pretty substantive and fair-minded discussion from what I saw.

    CNN, as it sometimes does, kept veering off course into minor points far from the main thrust of the SOTU. David Gergen and Wolf Blitzer don’t really seem to listen to each other or play off each other well.

    When I watched msnbc, Ed Schultze launched into boilerplate rant against republicans and I had no choice but to bail.

    CNN is usually my preference from among the big 3, but they have a little bit of an “idiosyncratic eggheadism” problem when it comes to punditry. I noticed a similar thing in the coverage of Obama’s Tucson speech. The consensus at Fox was that this was transcendent speech. The usually sour turd, Krauthammer, seemed visibly moved. Meanwhile, over at CNN, Gergen seemed almost angry about Obama’s speech, and no one else, including me, understood why.

  • theWord

    You are a bit like lysol

  • Mike A.

    “Is a conspiracy the only explanation?”

    Only if there are no others.

  • Terry

    I think ‘conspiracy’ is the wrong word. It’s just another example how Fox operates to ensure that the only narrative is their narrative. If they do not like the result, they will just change the information. Downplay a result they disagree with on an editorial standpoint, up-play a result that better fits what they would like the interpretation to be.

    I’m sure this will never be an issue they will respond to, but I can guarantee they will claim it’s ‘non scientific’ (which it is of course) or if they were really concerned they say the poll was attacked my leftist hackers or something silly.

    But the reality is that people responded to a poll of theirs that was counter to their own editorials and position, so they took it down and buried it.

    Why isn’t that ‘far and balanced’ of them!

  • mike mcEachran

    Fox is a charade. Have you ever tried to post a comment that is blindly supportive of all things Republican? They don’t allow it. Ever. Their audience understands the game, and participates in the lie. I don’t think their stupid, swallowing the lies wholesale; I think they adhere to a win-at-all-cost mentality, where it’s okay to throw out science, fact, reality, for the sake of the win – the country and everything else be damned.

  • mike mcEachran

    Sorry, I meant: “..ISN’T blindly supportive..” Also: Misspelled “they’re”. I hate that…

  • theWord

    While we are clarifying things. I should have said air freshener instead of lysol.

  • kranky kritter

    But the reality is that people responded to a poll of theirs that was counter to their own editorials and position, so they took it down and buried it.

    If they in fact did that, it’s shamefully dishonest. I spend no time at all at the Foxnews website, so I have no idea how often they change their polls or whether they really censor dissent in comment threads. It’s plausible that the poll described really was taken down by some petty ideologue who didn’t like the results. An imbecile. Who thinks such polls matter for anything. Other equally plausible speculative explanations exist.

    I do think that sometimes, every once in a while a bit of meaning can be gleaned from these self-report polls despite the fact that the sampling method means they have no real validity.

    But in general, I avoid basing any strong opinions on what a bunch of web surfers at a site say in response to a poll. They’re extremely unreliable data.

  • theWord

    Other equally plausible speculative explanations exist.

    Take out the word speculative since it was put there once again to apologize for the Right Wing Media and make it look like it only a wild and biased imagination could get you there and look at the long record of emails and documentation of how that network operates and “equally plausible” quickly appears to be not really plausible at all.

  • kranky kritter

    In the absence of any actual evidence as to motive, all explanations are purely speculative.

    In the absence of such evidence, I’ve forthrightly acknowledged that the explanation given here is plausible. It’s beyond me why anyone would expect more than that from someone who has no dog in this hunt.

    You want to step right to this conclusion because it’s plausible. Be my guest. I don’t perceive the need.