Twitter roundup

Comments

[David in Cal]

That so-called "Killer chart from @brianbeutler" is a graphical enthymeme.

It makes the unstated assumption that the spending at the start of a President's first term is the appropriate basis for judging a President's future spending. In reality, the proper and affordable level of federal spending depends on the size of the deficit, the size of the national debt, the ratio of spending to GDP, etc. By any of these measures, Obama's spending is wildly out of control.

That "killer chart" also makes the unstated assumption that a President's spending increase should be measured as a percentage of spending at the start of his first term, rather than as a dollar figure. In other words, it assumes that the more the government has been spending, the more increase it can afford. Of course, the opposite is true.

[David in Cal]

A paper co-authored by Brendan showed that graphical presentations could help reduce incorrect beliefs. OTOH the deceptive "killer chart" shows that graphical presentations can also increase incorrect beliefs.

In other words, I suspect that Brendan's conclusion could be generalized to say that graphical presentations can be used to shape beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs are correct or incorrect.

[David in Cal]

As I understand the article On the Near Impossibility of Measuring Advertising Effectiveness, it seems to define "reliable conclusions" or "sufficiently informative confidence intervals" as having 90% power. I guess a 90% standard is used for some academic research. The medical journals my wife published in generally require 95% confidence. These standards are useful. They help assure that data has been carefully analysed and that conclusions are fairly firm. However, both of these standards are arbitrary. There's no reason to believe either 90% or 95% is appropriate for business decisions.

For many business purposes, a much lower standard is more appropriate. A business doesn't have to be right 90% of the time. If it makes more good decisions than bad decisions, it will likely prosper.

I suspect that many advertising decisions would be measurable if a standard well below 90% were used.

[Rob]

The soul-crushing tedium of living in Hanover must have deadened Brendan's critical faculties. Citing a New York Times article about its Times/CBS poll, he tweeted, "Exemplary poll reporting by NYT's @JimRutenberg & @MarjConn - put approval drop in context of WP & Gallup, and note MOE."

What's wrong with the Times article? First, as Mickey Kaus cogently explains, the Times spins the results of its questions about the mandate to cover costs of birth control, misrepresenting the response of women on the subject of employers opting out for moral or religious reasons and neglecting to mention at all the even more lopsided response of men.

Second, though Brendan may be correct that the article puts the drop in approval in context and discusses the margin of error, we should consider the dog that didn't bark. When Obama's approval goes down, the Times is all about context and margin of error, but when Obama's approval went up, that dog was eerily silent.

The New York Times's spin has become so blatant it would be laughable, were it not for the fact that so many elite opinion-makers uncritically accept and echo the Times's reporting. What we need is someone to call out the Times's trangressions rather than praise its malarky, perhaps a political scientist or a media critic or--dare we say it? does the enormity of the concept beggar our poor imaginations?--someone who is both a political scientist and media critic.

[David in Cal]

(a)Why have so many companies chosen to take their advertisements from Limbaugh’s show after the Fluke Fiasco (i.e. why was it a triggering moment?)
(b) what processes underlie advertisement withdrawal as it relates to controversial political speech?

Brendan tweeted about this question, He provided links that discuss ways to analyze these supposed processes, such as game theory.

However, Professor William Jacobson reports that Media Matters astroturfed the Limbaugh secondary boycott

The secondary boycott was initiated by and driven by Media Matters, which had a “Stop Limbaugh” campaign on the shelf waiting to be used, and was executed by Angelo Carusone, Director of Online Strategy for Media Matters.

Carusone was the person behind online efforts against Glenn Beck even before joining Media Matters in 2010, and also is behind Stop Fox News and Stop Limbaugh efforts. His role appears to be going after advertisers, and getting others to do so via Twitter and other online media.

In an interview with The Village Voice, Carusone acknowledged that there already was a dormant Stop Limbaugh campaign at Media Matters, which then was activated for this controversy....

While much of the public outcry against Limbaugh was genuine, the advertiser secondary boycott was astroturfed by Media Matters, which initiated a pre-existing “Stop Limbaugh” campaign, executed it over the first weekend of the controversy, and then hyped it and spoon fed it to the mainstream media without disclosing that a Media Matters employee was behind it all.

For all I know, some theoretical approach might be useful in analyzing the trajectory of this scandal. Even so, any proper analysis ought to start with the role played by Media Matters.

[David in Cal]

Brendan tweets a link to a NY Times op-ed asserting that the President can't do anything about gas prices, calling such belief a "GOP myth." Is it really a myth?

The President's critics point out that Mr. Obama has taken a number of specific steps that restrict drilling in the US (including offshore), and he prohibited the Keystone pipeline, even though it passed its environmental review. The critics say that more oil avialable in the US would mean lower prices at the pump. Obama's defenders, including the one linked by Brendan, assert that oil is a worldwide commodity, so more oil in the US wouldn't reduce prices here.

However, the defenders' position is undercut by the President's actions. The White House is currently considering whether to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to reduce gas prices. E.g., Time Magazine reports:

Oil: Should President Obama Tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
March 16, 2012

Yesterday Reuters reported that Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron discussed the possibility of releasing emergency oil reserves during a meeting on March 14. Opening up the reserves would presumably help reduce oil prices...

If extra oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would reduce gas prices here, I think it follows that extra oil from offshore drilling or from Canada via the Keystone pipeline would also reduce gas prices here.

[David in Cal]

P.S. Today's news says expanded oil production and increased exports to the US by Saudi Arabia is expected to bring down oil prices. See: Saudi Arabia is taking steps to cool the overheating global energy market, boosting its exports to the US and re-opening old oilfields to expand production

In fact, a later article tells us that Saudi Arabia's promise has already brought down the price of oil. See Oil down on Saudi Arabia assurance to stabilise prices

So, it can hardly be a myth that expanded production in the US and and increased oil imports from Canada would bring down the price of oil here. In fact, even the promise of these steps would presumably bring down oil prices.