http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/4308
Lies, Damned Lies, Zogby & PAAIA Surveys
Dr. Arash Irandoost
January 25, 2012
PAAIA recently published its third Public Opinion Survey of Iranian Americans which was carried out by Zogby Research Services. As an Iranian-American, journalist, researcher and political activist, I am very supportive of credible and scientific data on issues affecting Iran and the United States and PAAIA and Zogby deserve credit for making the effort. Unfortunately, my appreciation for both organizations has gradually eroded having examined their activities, affiliations, lack of transparency,* biases and double standards.
Nate Silver, statistician of FiveThirtyEight.com, called Zogby International's online polling division, "The worst pollster in the world." ranking it last in his Pollster Rankings. He also ranked Zogby's Telephone Polls 53rd of 64.
Rosemead Times reports that Zogby is politically motivated and accuses Zogby of Islamist bias documented by the fact that Saudi Prince, Saud Bin Turki, is a board member of the Zogby International with ties to the Royal House of Saud.
Atlas Shrugs in an article called Obama: Zogby’s Bias Strikes Again, reports that Zogby’s have been contributing to Obama’s campaign, as cited by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).
According to Wikipedia, in 2004, Zogby wrongly predicted a comfortable win for John Kerry saying, "Bush had this election lost a long time ago. In 2006, Zogby wrongly calculated the margin of United States Senate races by an average of 8.6%, twice the average of Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, and Mason-Dixon.
Tim Kane, in an article titled Zogby’s Bogus Poll on US Military in Iraq, states that the unforgivable flaw in Zogby's survey is the biased phrasing of its questions and answers.
In 2009, Zogby conducted a Telephone Survey of Iranians commissioned by Terror Free Tomorrow, (TFT) stipulating that 89% of Iranians would cast a vote in the upcoming presidential elections, 34% of Iranians would vote for Ahmadinejad, compared to 14% for Mousavi and 2% Karrubi and that 60% Iranians are supportive of Shiite militias and Lebanese Hezbollah. All three extrapolations are proven to be false. Mr. Lee H. Hamilton sits on the Advisory Board of TFT with direct links to Trita Parsi and Flynt Leverett, widely known among the Iranian-Americans as lobbyists for the Islamic Republic.
PAAIA’s most recent Iranian-Americans Public Opinion Survey was conducted by Zogby via telephone and in English between Oct.3-6, 2011 containing approximately 20 questions asked of 400 “Iranian” Americans from a “purchased” list.
The definition and classification of “Iranian-Americans” as defined by PAAIA needs further exploration. Legally, an Iranian-American is a person who is a “naturalized” citizen of the United States eligible to vote and not a permanent resident (Green Card holder).” According to the survey fifty-two percent (52%) of the survey respondents, responding to a question on their plans to vote, admitted that they were not eligible to vote which disqualifies them as Iranian-“Americans.”
Questions also surround the “purchased” nature and source of the Iranian-American surname list which Zogby obtained to conduct its Iranian public opinion surveys. PAAIA has a copyright on its surveys and Zogby ignores requests to disclose information on their survey methodology.*
Of the 400 respondents, 167 (53%) were Democrats, 106 (34%) were Independents and only 40(13%) were Republicans, totaling only 313 (100%). It is not clear as to what happened to the other 87 survey participants? This sampling is erroneous and biased at best, especially on the questions related to Iranian-American’s approval of a Democrat President and Mr. Obama’s handling of Iranian uprising of 2009. It is also rather perplexing as to how Zogby could extrapolate that Iranian-Americans are “mostly inclined to vote for Obama in 2012 presidential elections” considering that there was a significant decline in Iranian-American approval of President Obama’s handling of Iran and there was even a 55% drop among the democrats themselves who stated that they would not vote for president Obama in 2012.
When asked what type of government Iranian-Americans think would work best for Iran, only 2% chose “Islamic Republic” and only 4% opted for “Reformed Islamic Republic” as options. Ninety-four (94%) of Iranian-Americans indicated they want regime change. Therefore, it begs the question as to how Zogby could conclude that merely 32% of Iranian-Americans believe that “the promotion of regime change” would be in the best interest of the United States.
Zogby also claimed that 38% of Iranian-Americans believe “diplomatic negotiations and establishing diplomatic relations are the best policy approach.” This simply defies logic. Why 94% of Iranian-Americans, who state regime change as the best option for Iran, would prefer negotiations and diplomacy? Zogby’s data does not support its conclusion.
According to the survey, only 21% of Iranian-Americans felt that sanctions were “very burdensome.” Once again, it is not clear how Zogby could conclude that “a significant number of Iranian-Americans find the restrictions imposed by the sanctions as burdensome”, when only 21% chose “very burdensome” as their answer?
It is quiet acceptable for PAAIA to lobby and protect its often super-wealthy Iranian and Iranian-American elite membership’s “self-interest,” but PAAIA’s “self-interest” should not be confused with and does not equate to 94% of the Iranian-American community’s “interests” who do not want any form of Islamic government, nor do they favor dialogue and diplomacy, removal of sanctions and opening of a virtual embassy (another Obama and Clinton ill-advised concoction) which was expectedly blocked by the Tehran’s digital gatekeepers in less than 12 hours of its launch.
Neither can PAAIA claim it focuses on domestic issues, while it attempts to influence U.S. policy and advocate for policies oftentimes favorable to the regime and Iranian-American elite businessmen.
Reputable pollsters and researchers do not normally choose their samples, since such research samples are totally biased considering that is based as it is on a “purchased” list. Purchased list are neither random nor valid. It is evident that the Zogby and PAAIA have ulterior motives considering the purpose for which such public opinion surveys are utilized: to influence Congress purportedly on behalf of the Iranian-American community. PAAIA’s surveys as designed, carried out and extrapolated by Zogby simply do not pass the smell test. Zogby’s biased phrasing of its questions, carefully constructed choices/answers and manufactured conclusions should be challenged.
In the age of the Internet, social networking, access to information and policy makers is no longer the sole propriety of a few select Iranians and Iranian-American elite and lobby groups at the expense of the larger Iranian-American community. Having left Iran by force or by choice and living as productive citizens of a great country such as the United States, Iranian-Americans should be and many are in regular contact with their local and national representatives to ensure that their opinions are heard and their views are considered, despite deceptive efforts by a select few lobbyists who attempt to mislead policy makers to serve their “self-Interests.”
There is no question that Islamic Republic has established a sophisticated lobby network to shape U.S. foreign policy. There is also no doubt that Iran’s economy is monopolized by the Islamic Republic Guardian Council (IRGC) and certain Iranian and Iranian-American wealthy elite are currently conducting lucrative business with Iran in violation of U.S. Sanctions. There are pro regime Iranians and Iranian-American businessmen and U.S. corporations who insist on dialogue and diplomacy and removal of sanctions for their economic and financial “self-interest.” Such groups are routinely quite on blatant human rights violations by the regime and Iran’s nuclear weapons’ program or are engaged in shallow human rights overtures to legitimize or hide their true intentions.
PAAIA claims to engage in domestic and non-partisan issues. PAAIA cannot conveniently surmise sanctions as domestic issues, and stay away from regime’s nuclear program and human rights that identically can be classified as domestic that affect Iranian-Americans. If PAAIA, rightfully, showcases the fact that Iranian-Americans maintain very close contact with their families and friends inside Iran to justify the removal of sanctions, it behooves its leadership to accept that human rights and nuclear weapons program are perhaps far “more burdensome” with far more serious implications and devastating consequences than issues related to sanctions on inheritance and transfer of funds.
*Readers might be interested to know that a request for the methodology and survey design was submitted to both PAAIA and Zogby. PAAIA responded by referring us to Zogby for the information and despite three requests, Zogby has refused to respond to our inquiry.
0 comments:
Post a Comment